Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eponyms continue to have their place in medicine but there are pitfalls associated with their use. "Priorities" may be debatable, misattributions are not uncommon, and knowledge of the original papers is often insufficient. A. Ya. Kozhevnikov (1836-1902) is considered to be the founder of the Russian neurology, best known in the West for his work on epilepsia partialis continua (EPC), published in 1894. Kozhevnikov considered various natures for this disorder but thought chronic infectious etiology to be the most probable. Shortly the eponym Kozhevnikov epilepsy was coined and used in clinical practice and writing. Thirty-five years after Kozhevnikov's death, in 1937, a new form of viral encephalitis, Russian spring-summer tick-borne encephalitis (RTBE), was discovered, which was strongly associated with EPC and at times incorrectly attributed to Kozhevnikov by Russian (Soviet) and West-European scientists, although he never specifically identified or even could have recognized this disease entity. When, in 1958, Canadian scientists published about persisting focal epilepsy due to chronic focal encephalitis in children, a new disease was proclaimed: Rasmussen syndrome or Rasmussen chronic encephalitis. The only reference to Kozhevnikov in the Canadian papers was the incorrect suggestion that Kozhevnikov himself described EPC in RTBE. This historical error resulted in continuing misquotations of Kozhevnikov in the current literature and controversies concerning the place of Kozhevnikov epilepsy in the Classification Scheme of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). The history of Kozhevnikov epilepsy thereby offers an illustrative example of the successive misunderstandings, errors, and controversies that arise due to insufficient knowledge or understanding of the original publications, questionable post hoc interpretations of earlier findings, misquoting of secondary papers, or a combination of all these.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".