MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066107525 · doi:10.1177/0883073808314158

Ambulatory Electroencephalography (EEG) in Children: Diagnostic Yield and Tolerability

2007· article· en· W2066107525 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Wirrell, Silvia Kozlik, Samuel Wiebe, Lorie Hamiwka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanFoothills Medical CentreRoyal University HospitalAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyAmbulatoryIctalEpilepsyMedicineTolerabilityAnesthesiaAudiologyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixty-four children, aged 0-17 years, undergoing ambulatory electroencephalography (EEG) were prospectively recruited during a 12-month period. The diagnostic yield of ambulatory electroencephalography was determined for each of the following groups: group 1: differentiation of seizures from nonepileptic events; group 2: determination of seizure/interictal discharge frequency; and group 3: classification of seizure type or localization. The ambulatory electroencephalography answered the clinical question in 61% of group 1 (27/44) and 100% of groups 2 (16/16) and 3 (4/4). Of 44 cases in Group 1, clinical events were recorded in 61%; the ambulatory electroencephalography result changed the diagnosis from epileptic to nonepileptic or vice versa in 27%. When clinicians suspected that events were epileptic, ambulatory electroencephalography changed the clinical impression in 50%, whereas when events were suspected to be nonepileptic, ambulatory electroencephalography confirmed that impression in 83%.

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)0.007
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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