MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180981774 · doi:10.5698/1535-7511-12.4s.22

AED Treatment through Different Ages: As Our Brains Change, Should Our Drug Choices Also?

2012· article· en· W2180981774 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUCB PharmaValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalEisaiUpsher-SmithJazz PharmaceuticalsPfizer
KeywordsDrugPharmacokineticsEtiologyMedicineEpilepsyDrug metabolismAffect (linguistics)PharmacologyAdverse effectIntensive care medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient age can impact selection of the optimal antiepileptic drug for a number of reasons. Changes in brain physiology from neonate to elderly, as well as changes in underlying etiologies of epilepsy, could potentially affect the ability of different drugs to control seizures. Unfortunately, much of this is speculative, as good studies demonstrating differences in efficacy across age ranges do not exist. Beyond the issue of efficacy, certain drugs may be more or less appropriate at different ages because of differing pharmacokinetics, including changes in hepatic metabolism, absorption, and elimination. Lack of appropriate drug formulations (such as liquid forms) may be a barrier to using drugs in the very young. Finally, some serious adverse events are seen either exclusively or preferentially at different ages.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.263 · 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