MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286354446

Trajectories of Health and Well-being in Children with Epilepsy: Hypotheses and Methodology of a Canadian Longitudinal Study

2014· article· en· W2286354446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabriel M. Ronen

Bibliographic record

Venue13th International Child Neurology Congress (ICNC2014) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialLongitudinal studyPsychologyEpilepsyPopulationMultilevel modelDuration (music)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Our study quantifies direct, mediating and moderating influences of various epilepsy, co-morbid, child, and family variables on children’s health and well-being over the early life-course. We will present hypotheses and methodology of this prospective longitudinal study based on a conceptual framework for understanding health outcomes. Methods The population is children with epilepsy 8-14 years old and their caregivers from across Canada. Children, caregivers, and health professionals complete 17 measures at five visits over 28 months. The measures are all based on content, the source of the items, psychometric properties, and provision for child self-report. Our cross-sectional and longitudinal design includes a relational model for structural equation modeling of specific biomedical and psychosocial variables with hierarchical direction of influence. We use hierarchical linear modeling to measure change over time. Results Demographics: among 506 families: mean child age 11.4-years; epilepsy onset 6.2 years; epilepsy duration 5.2 years; and mean IQ 99.4.  Characteristics: 71% take a single medication; 46% have experienced medication failure; 29% have been seizure free, 31% had low and 37% high seizure severity over the previous year. Discussion Discussion of these perspectives will help researchers consider their methodology and encourage longitudinal studies. Furthermore, our experience may help clinicians identify what to look for when evaluating outcomes research. We believe that the next generation of research to understand life-course effects on the lives of children and youth with chronic conditions and their families must occur over real time.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue13th International Child Neurology Congress (ICNC2014)Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207