Adolescents' Perception of Epilepsy Compared With Other Chronic Diseases: “Through a Teenager's Eyes”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent perception of physical and social impact of chronic illness was assessed to determine (1) if there is greater prejudice toward epilepsy than other chronic disease and (2) if adolescents with chronic disease have less prejudice toward similarly affected peers with all types of chronic disease or just their specific chronic disease. Cognitively normal teens aged 13 to 18 years without chronic disease (n = 41) and with epilepsy (n = 32), asthma (n = 38), diabetes (n = 21), and migraine (n = 17) were interviewed in the outpatient clinics of a tertiary care pediatric center regarding their perceptions of the physical and social impact of eight chronic diseases (epilepsy, asthma, diabetes, Down syndrome, arthritis, migraine, leukemia, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] infection). Epilepsy was perceived to have a more adverse physical impact than all chronic illnesses except Down syndrome. The perception was that it more frequently caused mental handicap, injured the afflicted individual and bystanders, and led to death. Epilepsy was also perceived to have a more negative social impact, particularly on behavior, honesty, popularity, adeptness at sports, and fun. Significantly more adolescents expressed reluctance to befriend peers with epilepsy, both from their own and their perceived parental perspectives. Having a chronic disease did not generally alter the adolescents' perceptions of peers with chronic disease. However, cases with epilepsy ranked this disease to have less social impact than teens with other chronic diseases. In conclusion, adolescents consider epilepsy to have a greater physical and social impact than most chronic diseases. Educational efforts should focus on the "normality" of most persons with epilepsy and emphasize the low risk of injury when proper first aid is followed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".