YouTube Videos as a Teaching Tool and Patient Resource for Infantile Spasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess YouTube videos for their efficacy as a patient resource for infantile spasms. Videos were searched using the terms infantile spasm, spasm, epileptic spasm, and West syndrome. The top 25 videos under each term were selected according to set criteria. Technical quality, diagnosis of infantile spasms, and suitability as a teaching resource were assessed by 2 neurologists using the Medical Video Rating Scale. There were 5858 videos found. Of the 100 top videos, 46% did not meet selection criteria. Mean rating for technical quality was 4.0 of 5 for rater 1 and 3.9 of 5 for rater 2. Raters found 60% and 64% of videos to accurately portray infantile spasms, respectively, with significant agreement (Cohen κ coefficient = 0.75, P < .001). Ten videos were considered excellent examples (grading of 5 of 5) by at least 1 rater. YouTube may be used as an excellent patient resource for infantile spasms if guided search practices are 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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".