MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seizures in children after kidney transplantation: Has the risk changed and can we predict who is at greatest risk?

2007· article· en· W2085557175 on OpenAlexaff
Lorie Hamiwka, Julian Midgley, Lorraine Hamiwka

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationElectroencephalographyPediatricsKidney transplantationIncidence (geometry)EpilepsyFamily historyRisk factorInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children undergoing kidney transplantation are at increased risk for symptomatic seizures with a previously reported incidence of approximately 20%. Little data exist to help predict which children may be at risk. We retrospectively reviewed all children who underwent kidney transplantation evaluation at our center between October 1993 and August 2007 and identified 41 children who had an EEG prior to transplant. Demographic data as well as the following were collected: immunosuppressive medications, developmental status, history of seizures, family history of seizures, post-transplant seizures and EEG results. EEGs were classified as normal or abnormal. Prior to transplantation, one child had a history of febrile seizures and six experienced afebrile seizures. Nine (22%) children identified had an abnormal EEG prior to transplant. In eight cases the EEG was non-epileptiform and in one case was epileptiform. Abnormal EEGs did not correlate with a family history of seizures. Delayed development was noted in seven children and was not associated with an epileptiform EEG. Following kidney transplantation, no child experienced a seizure. Our single center study suggests that current rates of seizures following kidney transplantation are lower than previously reported and that routine EEG as part of the pretransplant evaluation in these children is of limited use to predict those at risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207