MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322117778 · doi:10.1586/14737175.2016.1169925

Furthering our understanding of SUDEP: the role of animal models

2016· review· en· W2322117778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aline Priscila Pansani, Diego Basile Colugnati, Carla A. Scorza, Antônio-Carlos G. de Almeida, Ésper A. Cavalheiro, Fúlvio A. Scorza

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEpilepsyHypoventilationSerotonergicMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessNeuroscienceSudden deathChannelopathyApneaIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPsychologyCardiologyRespiratory systemPsychiatryInternal medicineSerotoninReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden and unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the most common type of death among patients with epilepsy. Here, we address the importance of the experimental models in search of the mechanisms underlying SUDEP. Most studies have investigated the cardiovascular responses in animal models of epilepsy. However, there are few proposed SUDEP models in literature. Hypoventilation, apnea, respiratory distress, pulmonary hypertension, autonomic dysregulation and arrhythmia are common findings in epilepsy models. Impairments on adenosinergic and serotonergic systems, brainstem spreading depolarization, seizure-activation of neural substrates related to cardiorespiratory control, altered autonomic control, and mutations on sodium and potassium channels are hypothesis suggested. Overall, current research highlights the evident multifactorial nature of SUDEP, which involves acute and chronic aspects ranging from systemic to molecular alterations. Thus, we are convinced that elucidation and prevention of SUDEP can be achieved only through the interaction between basic and clinical science.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207