MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072545533 · doi:10.1111/epi.12176

Definition of drug‐resistant epilepsy: Is it evidence based?

2013· review· en· W2072545533 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyDrug Resistant EpilepsyClinical neurologyMedicineDrugPsychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical case definitions are the cornerstone of clinical communication and of clinical and epidemiologic research. The ramifications of establishing a case definition are extensive, including potentially large changes in epidemiologic estimates of frequency, and decisions for clinical management. Yet, defining a condition entails numerous challenges such as defining the scope and purpose, incorporating the strongest evidence base with clinical expertise, accounting for patients' values, and considering impact on care. The clinical case definition of drug-resistant epilepsy, in addition, must address what constitutes an adequate intervention for an individual drug, what are the outcomes of relevance, what period of observation is sufficient to determine success or failure, how many medications should be tried, whether seizure frequency should play a role, and what is the role of side effects and tolerability. On the other hand, the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) aim at providing a systematic approach to incorporating the best available evidence into the process of clinical decision for individual patients. The case definition of drug-resistant epilepsy proposed by the the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) in 2009 is evaluated in terms of the principles of EBM as well as the stated goals of the authors of the definition.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207