MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal clinical management of children receiving the ketogenic diet: Recommendations of the International Ketogenic Diet Study Group

2008· article· en· W2139950207 on OpenAlexaff
Eric H. Kossoff, Beth Zupec‐Kania, Per Åmark, Karen Ballaban‐Gil, Anna Bergqvist, Robyn Blackford, Jeffrey Buchhalter, Roberto Caraballo, J. Helen Cross, Maria Dahlin, Elizabeth Donner, Joerg Klepper, Rana Jehle, Heung Dong Kim, Y. M. Christiana Liu, Judy Nation, Douglas R. Nordli, Heidi H. Pfeifer, Jong M. Rho, Carl E. Stafstrom, Elizabeth A. Thiele, Zahava Turner, Elaine Wirrell, James W. Wheless, Pierangelo Veggiotti, Eileen P.G. Vining

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetogenic dietDiscontinuationMedicineNeurologyAdverse effectPediatricsFamily medicinePediatric NeurologyIntensive care medicineEpilepsyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ketogenic diet (KD) is an established, effective nonpharmacologic treatment for intractable childhood epilepsy. The KD is provided differently throughout the world, with occasionally significant variations in its administration. There exists a need for more standardized protocols and management recommendations for clinical and research use. In December 2006, The Charlie Foundation commissioned a panel comprised of 26 pediatric epileptologists and dietitians from nine countries with particular expertise using the KD. This group was created in order to create a consensus statement regarding the clinical management of the KD. Subsequently endorsed by the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society, this resultant manuscript addresses issues such as patient selection, pre-KD counseling and evaluation, specific dietary therapy selection, implementation, supplementation, follow-up management, adverse event monitoring, and eventual KD discontinuation. This paper highlights recommendations based on best evidence, including areas of agreement and controversy, unanswered questions, and future research.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations603
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207