Inconsistency between prospectively and retrospectively reported febrile seizures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the incidence of febrile seizures (FS) reported prospectively up to 5 years of age, with the prevalence of FS by parental recall in the same cohort using the same questionnaire at 12 years of age. Both prospective and retrospective data were available for 807 children (389 males, 418 females). The number of children reported to have experienced FS in the prospective study was 57, and in the retrospective study was 45, yielding a cumulative incidence of 7.1 and 5.6% respectively. In the retrospective study there was an under-reporting of 19 children, over-reporting of eight children, and one child misreported by age at onset. Overall sensitivity of the retrospective approach was 65% and specificity was 99%. Positive predictive value was 82% and negative predictive value was 97%. Retrospective data underestimate the frequency of FS with high specificity but low sensitivity. Recall data suggest that some children with FS were not reported in the prospective data. These biases should be considered when evaluating the value of FS as a predictor of future health effects.
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 | 0.021 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".