Unintentional injuries among people with epilepsy in Bhutan (P2.320)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze unintentional injuries among people with epilepsy (PWE) or suspected seizures in a resource-limited setting, including the relationship of injuries to electroencephalography (EEG), seizure frequency, and quality of life. BACKGROUND: Bhutan is a remote, landlocked, low-income country with a gross national income per capita of 2420USD with a high burden of epilepsy. Unintentional injuries are anecdotally reported to occur among PWE in Bhutan although antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are freely available. DESIGN/METHODS: Subjects of all ages were recruited in July-August 2014 in an ongoing, prospective, cohort study at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuk National Referral Hospital in Thimphu. Each participant completed an EEG (XLTEK, Natus Medical Inc.) and those 蠅12 years completed a quality of life in epilepsy-31 survey. Standardized interviews in English or Dzhongka were administered to the participant or proxy as appropriate. RESULTS: A quarter of participants (26/106, 46[percnt] female, mean age 24 years) reported unintentional injuries (14 head injuries, 9 burns, 5 fractures/joint dislocations, 1 motor vehicle accident (>1 injury/person possible)). Participants with unintentional injuries were more likely to have an abnormal EEG (18/52, 34.6[percnt] versus 8/54, 14.8[percnt], p=0.025) and epileptiform abnormalities (15/37, 40.5[percnt] versus 11/69 15.9[percnt], p>0.05 for both) but less likely to be treated with an AED (26.9[percnt] versus 50.0[percnt], p=0.04). There were no significant differences in the mean number of seizures self-reported in the prior month (4 versus 8) or mean QOLIE-31 score (48.3 versus 48.9) (p>0.05 for both). After adjustment for age, sex, AED treatment, and seizure number, a normal EEG remained strongly associated with lower odds of unintentional injuries (OR 0.19, 95[percnt]CI 0.07-0.57, p=0.03) CONCLUSION:In resource-limited settings, EEG provide clinically relevant information to PWE and suspected seizures, leading to better provider identification of those at risk of serious unintentional injuries than clinical interview alone. Study Supported by: Grand Challenges Canada, Thrasher Foundation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".