MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161961576 · doi:10.1136/adc.2009.181255

Children's access to treatment for epilepsy: experience from the Lao People's Democratic Republic

2010· review· en· W2161961576 on OpenAlexaff
Khouanheuan Sengkhamyong, Emercia M. Sambany, Paulin Koffi, Phetvongsinh Chivorakul, Gwenaelle Empis, S. Clavel, Silaphet Somphavong, N. Wangkou, Christian Rajaonarivo, Aina Harimanana

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsFrancophone University Association
FundersInstituto Federal de Mato GrossoSanofi
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyIgnoranceSocial stigmaStigma (botany)DiseasePopulationPsychiatryDeveloping countryPediatricsFamily medicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy affects an estimated 10.5 million children worldwide, of whom 80% live in developing countries. The treatment gap is estimated at around 90% in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). The present work analyses some of the reasons that could explain the low access to antiepileptic drugs (AED) for children with epilepsy in the Lao PDR. Epilepsy, the 'mad pig disease', is highly neglected. Traditional beliefs, fear and stigma are common among the general population and shared by 40% of health staff. Poor knowledge of the disease and its treatment, low trust in modern treatment, restricted access to AED and ignorance of long-term treatment explain the low access to AED. Improving understanding of epilepsy and its treatment, will improve the treatment gap for epileptic children in the Lao PDR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207