Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Neonatal EEG Findings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it