Experiences from an International Tele-Epilepsy Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our main objective was to use videoconferencing as a primary means to: a) assist in launching an epilepsy surgery program in Pakistan; 2) participate in case conferences on complex epilepsy patients in each country. METHODS: Extensive testing using both point to point and bridged integrated service digital network (ISDN) and internet protocol (IP) connections was carried out using bandwidths of 384-768 kilobits per second (kbps). Videoconferences between sites were arranged two to three weeks in advance and connections were tested a day prior to the scheduled conference. Sharing of PowerPoint presentations, neuroimaging and video-EEG was available to all sites. Discussions centered on patients with medically refractory epilepsy. RESULTS: Between July 2006 and June 2008, 17 sessions were booked. Five of these conferences bridged in specialists from West Virginia University. Most successful connections occurred using IP point to point calls or a bridge connecting end points through IP at 512 kbps. We conducted three surgeries for medically refractory temporal lobe epilepsy in Pakistan. At follow-up in January 2009, two patients have been seizure free and one had two breakthrough seizures after sudden unsupervised discontinuation of Levetiracetam. CONCLUSION: Our international tele-epilepsy collaboration has proven feasible and valuable to all participants. Our experience suggests considerable thought and preparation are needed before a teleconference to ensure its success. We provide a recipe to set-up similar telemedicine collaborations. Considerations include time zone differences, equipment type, interoperability between endpoints, connection capabilities, bandwidth availability, and backup plans for unsuccessful connections. Telemedicine can facilitate epilepsy care around the world, identifying with the concept of a "Global Health Village".
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".