Are febrile seizures an indication for intermittent benzodiazepine treatment, and if so, in which cases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Febrile seizures occur in ∼4% of children. After a first febrile seizure, the risk of recurrence is ∼40%, but excellent studies document that febrile seizures do not cause brain damage or deficits in cognition or behaviour. The risk of subsequent epilepsy is 2-4%. Prolonged febrile seizures are of concern because a child may later develop mesial temporal sclerosis and intractable epilepsy in rare cases. Most prolonged febrile seizures represent the first febrile seizure and cannot be anticipated. A first prolonged febrile seizure does not increase the risk of recurrence, but if there is a recurrence, it is more likely to be prolonged. Prevention of recurrent febrile seizures is difficult. Antipyretics are ineffective. Daily AED treatment is not often justified. Intermittent oral diazepam at the time of illness is not very successful and has significant side effects. The most optimistic study found that the number of subjects required to treat in order to prevent one recurrence was 14. Intermittent clobazam has fewer side effects than diazepam and may be somewhat effective. Rescue benzodiazepines given outside health care facilities may be effective in selected patients to prevent prolonged recurrences, although this has not been proven with rectal diazepam which has been more extensively studied than buccal or nasal midazolam. Currently, we suggest that, for children with febrile seizures, candidates for consideration for rescue benzodiazepines are those with a prolonged febrile seizure or poor access to medical care. It is possible that the use of a rescue benzodiazepine may alleviate severe parental anxiety, but this remains to be established.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".