Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevalence of Benign Epileptiform Variants. Santoshkumar B, Chong JJ, Blume WT, McLachlan RS, Young GB, Diosy DC, Burneo JG, Mirsattari SM. Clin Neurophysiol 2009;120(5):856–861. OBJECTIVE: There are numerous distinctive benign electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns which are morphologically epileptiform but are non-epileptic. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of different benign epileptiform variants (BEVs) among subjects who underwent routine EEG recordings in a large EEG laboratory over 35 years. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the prevalence of BEVs among 35,249 individuals who underwent outpatient EEG recordings at London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada between January 1, 1972 and December 31, 2007. The definitions of the Committee on Terminology of the International Federation of Societies for EEG and Clinical Neurophysiology (IFSECN) were used to delineate epileptiform patterns (Chatrian et al. A glossary of terms most commonly used by clinical electroencephlographers. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1974;37:538–48) and the descriptions of Klass and Westmoreland [Klass DW, Westmoreland BF. Nonepileptogenic epileptiform electroenephalographic activity. Ann Neurol 1985;18:627–35] were used to categorize the BEVs. RESULTS: BEVs were identified in 1183 out of 35,249 subjects (3.4%). The distribution of individual BEVs were as follows: benign sporadic sleep spikes 1.85%, wicket waves 0.03%, 14 and 6 Hz positive spikes 0.52%, 6 Hz spike-and-waves 1.02%, rhythmic temporal theta bursts of drowsiness 0.12%, and subclinical rhythmic electrographic discharge of adults in 0.07%. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of six types of BEVs was relatively low among the Canadian subjects when compared to the reports from other countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".