MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023057302 · doi:10.1111/epi.12962

Indications and expectations for neuropsychological assessment in routine epilepsy care: Report of the ILAE Neuropsychology Task Force, Diagnostic Methods Commission, 2013–2017

2015· article· en· W2023057302 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Wilson, Sallie Baxendale, William Barr, Sherifa A. Hamed, John T. Langfitt, Séverine Samson, Masako Watanabe, Gus A. Baker, Christoph Helmstaedter, Bruce P. Hermann, Mary‐Lou Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyTask forceEpilepsyNeuropsychological assessmentPsychologyMedicineTask (project management)PsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Diagnostic Methods Commission charged the Neuropsychology Task Force with the job of developing a set of recommendations to address the following questions: (1) What is the role of a neuropsychological assessment? (2) Who should do a neuropsychological assessment? (3) When should people with epilepsy be referred for a neuropsychological assessment? and (4) What should be expected from a neuropsychological assessment? The recommendations have been broadly written for health care clinicians in established epilepsy settings as well as those setting up new services. They are based on a detailed survey of neuropsychological assessment practices across international epilepsy centers, and formal ranking of specific recommendations for advancing clinical epilepsy care generated by specialist epilepsy neuropsychologists from around the world. They also incorporate the latest research findings to establish minimum standards for training and practice, reflecting the many roles of neuropsychological assessment in the routine care of children and adults with epilepsy. The recommendations endorse routine screening of cognition, mood, and behavior in new-onset epilepsy, and describe the range of situations when more detailed, formal neuropsychological assessment is indicated. They identify a core set of cognitive and psychological domains that should be assessed to provide an objective account of an individual's cognitive, emotional, and psychosocial functioning, including factors likely contributing to deficits identified on qualitative and quantitative examination. The recommendations also endorse routine provision of feedback to patients, families, and clinicians about the implications of the assessment results, including specific clinical recommendations of what can be done to improve a patient's cognitive or psychosocial functioning and alleviate the distress of any difficulties identified. By canvassing the breadth and depth of scope of neuropsychological assessment, this report demonstrates the pivotal role played by this noninvasive and minimally resource intensive investigation in the care of people with epilepsy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations208
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207