MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395735778 · doi:10.1542/gr.40-2-17

Prognosis of Childhood Epilepsy

2018· article· en· W2395735778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. R. Camfield, C. Camfield

Bibliographic record

VenueAAP Grand Rounds · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaMedicineEpilepsyPediatricsPopulationChildhood absence epilepsyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source: Aaberg KM, Bakken IJ, Lossius MI, et al. Short-term seizure outcomes in childhood epilepsy. Pediatrics. 2018: 141( 6): e20174016; doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4016[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Investigators from multiple institutions analyzed data from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) to assess shortterm seizure outcomes in children with epilepsy (CWE). MoBa is a nationwide cohort study of children born in Norway between 1999 and 2009. For the current study, the authors reviewed data from the Epilepsy in Young Children Study, which was embedded in MoBa. CWE were identified through linkage with the Norwegian Patient Registry and parental reports in periodic questionnaires; medical record review and parental interviews were used to capture clinical information about seizures and treatments. Only children with at least 1 year of follow-up were included in the analyses. The primary study outcome was drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), defined as seizures within the last year of patient follow-up despite trials of at least 2 antiepileptic drugs. Participants without … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2017-4016%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F29789444%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=141/6/e20174016&atom=%2Faapgrand%2F40%2F2%2F17.atom

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAP Grand RoundsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207