MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044931150 · doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0056-5

The role of prophylactic anticonvulsants in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

2009· review· en· W2044931150 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Mikkelsen, Nina A. Paleologos, Paula D. Robinson, Mario Ammirati, David W. Andrews, Anthony L. Asher, Stuart H. Burri, Charles Cobbs, Laurie E. Gaspar, Douglas Kondziolka, Mark E. Linskey, Jay S. Loeffler, Michael McDermott, Minesh P. Mehta, Jeffrey J. Olson, Roy A. Patchell, Timothy C. Ryken, Steven N. Kalkanis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversityCongress of Neurological Surgeons
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineRandomized controlled trialDiseaseIntensive care medicineClinical trialClinical PracticeOncologyInternal medicinePathologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Do prophylactic anticonvulsants decrease the risk of seizure in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared with no treatment? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with solid brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 For adults with brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease, routine prophylactic use of anticonvulsants is not recommended. Only a single underpowered randomized controlled trial (RCT), which did not detect a difference in seizure occurrence, provides evidence for decision-making purposes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations134
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207