MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193724952 · doi:10.1111/epi.13273

The current state of epilepsy guidelines: A systematic review

2015· review· en· W2193724952 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgenzia Italiana del Farmaco, Ministero della SaluteJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Institutes of HealthCitizens United for Research in EpilepsyNovartisOtsuka PharmaceuticalKyowa Hakko KirinEisaiHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of CalgaryTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.PfizerGlaxoSmithKlineUniversity of CalgaryU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsEpilepsyCurrent (fluid)MedicineClinical neurologyPsychiatryPsychologyNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Epilepsy Guidelines Task Force, composed of 14 international members, was established in 2011 to identify, using systematic review methodology, international epilepsy clinical care guidelines, assess their quality, and determine gaps in areas of need of development. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (1985-2014) was performed in six electronic databases (e.g. Medline, Embase) using a broad search strategy without initial limits to language or study design. Six gray literature databases (e.g., American Academy of Neurology [AAN], ILAE) were also searched to minimize publication bias. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full text articles, and performed data abstraction. Descriptive statistics and a meta-analysis were generated. RESULTS: The search identified 10,926 abstracts. Of the 410 articles selected for full text review, 63 met our eligibility criteria for a guideline. Of those included, 54 were in English and 9 were in other languages (French, Spanish, and Italian). Of all guidelines, 29% did not specify the target age groups, 27% were focused on adults, 22% included only children, and 6% specifically addressed issues related to women with epilepsy. Guidelines included in the review were most often aimed at guiding clinical practice for status epilepticus (n = 7), first seizure (n = 6), drug-resistant epilepsy (n = 5), and febrile seizures (n = 4), among others. Most of the guidelines were therapeutic (n = 35) or diagnostic (n = 16) in nature. The quality of the guidelines using a 1-7 point scale (7 = highest) varied and was moderate overall (mean = 4.99 ± 1.05 [SD]). SIGNIFICANCE: We identified substantial gaps in topics (e.g., epilepsy in the elderly) and there was considerable heterogeneity in methodologic quality. The findings should offer a valuable resource for health professionals caring for people with epilepsy, since they will help guide the prioritization, development, and dissemination of future epilepsy-related guidelines.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.311 · 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