MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2436209496 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.77

D.04 Validating StatNet EEG as a reliable and effective tool in the Diagnosis of Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus after hours

2016· article· en· W2436209496 on OpenAlexaffvenue
AR Voll, Deepa Dash, Wes Sutherland, Lizbeth Hernández‐Ronquillo, JF Tellez-Zenteno, Farzad Moien‐Afshari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsSaskatoon Medical Imaging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyStatus epilepticusArtifact (error)MedicineNeurologyKappaAudiologyInter-rater reliabilityMann–Whitney U testAnesthesiaPsychologyEpilepsyInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: NCSE dramatically increases morbidity and mortality. It is clinically subtle, which makes it difficult to diagnose without EEG. StatNet EEG provides a quick alternative to conventional EEG, which is often unavailable after hours. Methods: Each patient received a StatNet EEG by a neurology resident and a conventional EEG by an EEG technologist. Blinded studies were compared for delay between the studies, setup time, artifact, and abnormality detection using conventional EEG as controls. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney two-sample T-test was used. Results are expressed in mean minutes +/- SD. Kappa score assessed inter-observer reliability. Results: 19 patients were collected. Two StatNet EEGs were not interpretable and excluded. The mean delay between studies was 26h53min. Electrode placement is significantly shorter: 13:14±5:24 StatNet EEG vs 18:07±5:35 conventional EEG (p=0.02). Conclusions: There is high inter-rater reliability between the conventional and StatNet EEG groups (table 1) demonstrating that StatNet is a reliable and effective tool, aiding in early recognition and management of NCSE.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207