MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036450486 · doi:10.1177/08830738050200050201

Clinical and Neurophysiologic Spectrum Associated with Atypical Absence Seizures in Children with Intractable Epilepsy

2005· article· en· W2036450486 on OpenAlexaff
Melinda Nolan, Mohamed Bergazar, Bill Chu, Miguel A. Cortez, O. Carter Snead

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIctalEpilepsyElectroencephalographyPsychologyPediatricsIntractable epilepsySeizure typesMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and neurophysiologic correlates of atypical absence seizures in children with intractable epilepsy. In a retrospective review, 19 children with videoelectroencephalographic monitoring (female n=14; male n=5) fulfilled the electroclinical criteria for this seizure type. Atypical absence seizures occurred in a spectrum of clinical conditions associated with educational disability and intractable seizures. In comparison with children with only atypical absence seizures, children with atypical absence in association with multiple seizure types were more likely to have severe educational disability (n=11 of 13; P = .01), a slower ictal frequency (n=10 of 13; P = .01), and slow background rhythms for age (n = 13 of 13; P = .03). This study illustrates the broad clinical spectrum in which atypical absence seizures are encountered. Differentiation between children with only atypical absence seizures and children with multiple seizure types can be useful with respect to potential academic ability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207