Long-term Outcome of Infantile Gratification Phenomena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infantile gratification phenomena are self-stimulatory behaviors that are often misdiagnosed as epilepsy. Although the prognosis is thought to be benign, limited long-term follow-up studies exist. This was the objective of our study in addition to exploring the risks of future developmental, behavioral, or neurological abnormalities. METHODS: Series of consecutive infants with gratification phenomena were identified both retrospectively and prospectively over an eight year period from a single pediatric neurology service. The diagnosis was based on descriptive history, review of videotaped events, lack of neurological or developmental abnormalities, and normal routine electroencephalogram. RESULTS: Nineteen infants were followed for 3-11 years (mean 7.1). Their ages ranged between 4-13 months (mean 7) with 79% females. The diagnosis was not reached by the referring physician and 74% were misdiagnosed as epilepsy or movement disorder. The episodes recurred with variable frequency with gradual reduction in number and increase in length of attack-free periods with advancing age. Complete remission was noted in all patients by age 1-3 years (mean 1.9). However, 4 children (21%) developed features of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) on long-term follow up. In this group, the gratification phenomena appeared at a younger age with higher attack frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Gratification phenomena in infants are benign and self-limited, often spontaneously disappearing by two years of age. A correlation with future ADHD was found; however, larger prospective studies are needed to further examine this possible association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".