P.024 Stimulus-Induced Rhythmic, Periodic or Ictal Discharges (SIRPIDs): associated factors and prognostic implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: SIRPIDS were first described in 2004 in patients admitted in an intensive care unit. Despite few studies attempting to better characterize SIRPIDS, their pathophysiology and clinical implication remain uncertain. Methods: Adult patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit with alteration of consciousness who underwent EEG recording in three separate centers were included in this retrospective study. Demographic data and EEG findings were noted. Characteristics of SIRPIDS were documented. The main outcome measures included the incidence of SIRPIDS, association of SIRPIDS with mortality and other EEG characteristics, EEG and clinical predictors of mortality. Results: 416 patients were included and SIRPIDs were identified in 43 patients (10.3%). The proportion of patients with SIRPIDs was not significantly different across the three sites (p=0.3351). Anoxia (p=0.0009), antiepileptic medications (p=0.0109), electrographic seizures (p=0.0259), triphasic waves (p=0.0012) and epileptiform discharges (p=0.0242) were independently associated with the presence of SIRPIDs. Older age (p=0.0050), anoxia (p=<0.0001) and absence of EEG reactivity (p<0.0001), but not SIRPIDs (p=0.1668), were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: In critically ill patients undergoing EEG, SIRPIDs occurred in 10% and were associated with other electrographic abnormalities previously reported to indicate poor prognosis. SIRPIDs were not independently associated with in-hospital mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".