MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148565513 · doi:10.4314/ahs.v13i2.1

Nodding syndrome: origins and natural history of a longstanding epileptic disorder in sub-Saharan Africa

2013· article· en· W2148565513 on OpenAlexaff
PS Spencer, VS Palmer, Louise Jilek‐Aall

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Health Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyPsychiatryPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Repetitive involuntary head nodding was first reported in the 1960s in the Wapogoro tribe of Tanzania. OBJECTIVES: We describe the natural history of head nodding in the Wapogoro tribe, with special reference to the earliest reported dates of onset. METHODS: We analyzed clinical data from 150 historical patients seen between 1960 and 1971. RESULTS: Head nodding with or without grand mal convulsions was present in 33/150 (∼20%) cases, was mostly familial and equally distributed by gender. Age at onset of head nodding ranged from 2-22 years (mean: ∼10 years) in the period 1934-1962. Head nodding preceded onset of grand mal convulsions by up to 12 months, and motor and psychomotor deficits indicative of brain damage developed with time. Fourteen of the 33 cases died at 13-39 years of age (mean: ∼20 years) while nineteen aged 16-28 years (mean: ∼16 years) were still alive. CONCLUSION: Historical accounts of head nodding (amesinzia kichwa, Swahili) among the Wapogoro tribe fit the August 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) case definition of probable Nodding Syndrome. Reported to have existed in this population for at least 80 years, Nodding Syndrome is a progressive seizure disorder that leads to generalized convulsions (kifafa), brain damage and death.

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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Health SciencesSame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207