MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334297610 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0b013e3182121731

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Neonatal EEG Findings

2011· article· en· W2334297610 on OpenAlexaff
Salah Almubarak, Peter K. H. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Outcome (game theory)ElectroencephalographyMedicinePsychiatryEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study is to determine how specific EEG findings during neonatal period correlate with clinical outcome on follow-up. This is a retrospective study of 118 term newborns who had EEG in the first month of life and subsequent clinical assessment between 4 and 16 years. Clinical neurologic outcome was classified into "favorable" when patients had no or only mild limitation in assessment, "unfavorable" when patients had moderate to severe abnormalities in assessment, and "epilepsy" when patients had seizures. Of the 118 neonates, 36 (30.5%) had favorable and 82 (69.5%) had unfavorable outcome; 89 (75.4%) had epilepsy and 28 (23.7%) had not. Sixty-seven (57%) had abnormal EEG background of which 56 had both unfavorable outcome and epilepsy; 102 (86%) had sharp transient discharges of which 75 had unfavorable outcome; 20 (17%) had ictal epileptiform discharges of which 18 had unfavorable outcome; 98 (83%) had abnormal overall EEG impression of which 77 had unfavorable outcome and 80 had epilepsy. Abnormal EEG background (particularly suppression) during neonatal period may be predictive of Unfavorable outcome. Overall impression of EEG may be predictive of clinical outcome, even when individual parameters were not predictive. Other findings did not appear to be predictive.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207