Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe current continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG) utilization in critically ill children. METHODS: An online survey of pediatric neurologists from 50 US and 11 Canadian institutions was conducted in August 2011. RESULTS: Responses were received from 58 of 61 (95%) surveyed institutions. Common cEEG indications are altered mental status after a seizure or status epilepticus (97%), altered mental status of unknown etiology (88%), or altered mental status with an acute primary neurologic condition (88%). The median number of patients undergoing cEEG per month per center increased from August 2010 to August 2011 (6 to 10 per month in the United States; 2 to 3 per month in Canada). Few institutions have clinical pathways addressing cEEG use (31%). Physicians most commonly review cEEG twice per day (37%). There is variability regarding which services can order cEEG, the degree of neurology involvement, technologist availability, and whether technologists perform cEEG screening. CONCLUSIONS: Among the surveyed institutions, which included primarily large academic centers, cEEG use in pediatric intensive care units is increasing and is often considered indicated for children with altered mental status at risk for nonconvulsive seizures. However, there remains substantial variability in cEEG access and utilization among institutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it