MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2773879902 · doi:10.1111/epi.13936

What proportion of cases of epilepsy are actually caused by neurocysticercosis?

2017· letter· en· W2773879902 sur OpenAlexaff
Arturo Carpio, Matthew L. Romo, José Francisco Téllez‐Zenteno

Notice bibliographique

RevueEpilepsia · 2017
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueParasitic infections in humans and animals
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeurocysticercosisEpilepsyAsymptomaticPopulationPediatricsMedicineCysticercosisOdds ratioPsychiatryPathologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The recent study by Del Brutto et al.1 sought to determine the association between neurocysticercosis (NC) and epilepsy in an endemic rural population in Ecuador, explaining that their study addressed selection bias likely present in earlier studies, many of which have been scrutinized in recent reviews.2, 3 As the authors acknowledge, Prasad et al.4 also conducted a population-based study in India some years before, finding similar results, that is, that people with epilepsy had greater odds of also having NC. There is abundant information that all evolutive phases of the parasite in the brain, including calcification, are related to seizures.5 A genetic predisposition for low seizure threshold in patients with NC who develop epilepsy may exist,6 which would explain the substantial number of asymptomatic cases of NC in the population.7, 8 An interesting finding of the Del Brutto et al. study is that about 9% of the population had calcifications in the brain and were asymptomatic, which is very similar to a study carried out in rural Mexico,8 which found that 9.1% of apparently healthy participants had calcifications, probably due to NC, and were asymptomatic. Calcifications, of course, could correspond to other pathologies,9 but differential diagnosis would need to be established in a setting, such as a tertiary hospital, where additional diagnostic tools are available. We agree that there is no question that NC is one of many potential causes of epilepsy in some endemic countries, but we would argue that the true unknown question is the following: what proportion of cases of epilepsy are solely caused by NC? Unfortunately, this study and other cross-sectional studies cannot get us closer to answering this question, because temporality cannot be determined. Furthermore, because NC can be both a cause of epilepsy and an incidental finding, other potential causes of epilepsy need to be carefully ruled out before attributing epilepsy to NC. Type of neuroimaging is very important, because use of computed tomography (CT) alone may obscure some causes of epilepsy. It is probably time to recognize that CT alone may be limited in properly assessing etiology in patients with epilepsy for epidemiological studies and its use may lead to biased estimates. Depending on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique, dual pathology can be demonstrated in between 20% and 30% of cases.10 This raises the question of whether epilepsy could have been wrongly attributed to NC in a substantial number of cases in the present study, as MRI data were available for less than one-third of participants, notwithstanding that calcifications could have corresponded to pathologies other than NC. We argue that it is time to cease initiating more cross-sectional studies that tell us that NC and epilepsy are associated. This question has been answered many times and the answer will not change. It is time to conduct a prospective cohort study enrolling patients with new onset seizures and NC to tell us how many of these patients actually develop epilepsy. Additionally, epidemiological studies must emerge using MRI, at least in the cases selected for neurological examination, to ascertain the etiology of epilepsy. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0010,006
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEpilepsiaMême sujetParasitic infections in humans and animalsTravaux en français237 207