MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017335186 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0b013e3182872919

Continuous EEG Monitoring in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

2013· review· en· W2017335186 on OpenAlexaff
Bláthnaid McCoy, Cecil D. Hahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyNeonatal intensive care unitMedicineIntensive careIntensive care unitIncidence (geometry)PopulationIntensive care medicineNeonatal seizureEpilepsyContinuous monitoringPediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous EEG monitoring provides an opportunity to both accurately identify seizures and monitor the neurologic status of critically ill neonates in the intensive care unit. The incidence of seizures is higher in the neonatal period than at any other time in life. Seizures and abnormalities of EEG background are associated with significant risk of mortality and long-term neurodevelopmental morbidities. In the neonatal population the majority of seizures are not clinically evident and go undetected without EEG monitoring. We review the incidence and risk factors for neonatal seizures, and the utility of continuous EEG monitoring in the neonatal intensive care unit for seizure detection and for analysis of background to allow prognostication. We consider the role of amplitude-integrated EEG in the neonatal population. We consider the utility of continuous EEG for frequently encountered neurologic indications and discuss the outcome data and some new developments in continuous EEG monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207