MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471604621 · doi:10.1002/epi4.5

Classification of the epilepsies: New concepts for discussion and debate—Special report of the ILAE Classification Task Force of the Commission for Classification and Terminology

2016· article· en· W2471604621 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid E. Scheffer, Jacqueline A. French, Édouard Hirsch, Gary W. Mathern, Solomon L. Moshé, Emilio Perucca, Torbjörn Tomson, Samuel Wiebe, Sameer M. Zuberi

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHumanities Research Center, Rice UniversityNational Institutes of HealthDivision of Arctic SciencesTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.Yorkhill Children’s CharityEisaiSanofiUniversidade Católica de BrasíliaStockholms Läns LandstingNovartisPfizerGlaxoSmithKlineCURE Childhood Cancer
KeywordsTerminologyTask forceCommissionClassification schemeTask (project management)Computer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePsychologyPolitical scienceData scienceLinguisticsEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ILAE Task Force on Classification presents a road map for the development of an updated, relevant classification of the epilepsies. Our objective is to explain the process to date and the plan moving forward as well as to invite further discussion about the newly proposed terms and concepts. Here, we present our response to feedback about the 2010 Organization of the Epilepsies and clarify the reintroduction of the word "classification" to map out a framework for epilepsy diagnosis. We introduce some new concepts and suggest four diagnostic levels: seizure type, epilepsy category, epilepsy syndrome, and epilepsy with (specific) etiology to denote specific levels of diagnosis. We expand the etiological categories to six, focusing on those with treatment implications. Finally, we discuss the changes in terminology originally suggested and modifications in response to comments from the epilepsy community. We welcome feedback and discussion from the global epilepsy community, particularly for the new suggested terms, so that we can cement a classification that both reflects current thinking and scientific understanding and provides a dynamic, evolving framework.

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)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.024
Scholarly communication0.0190.044
Open science0.0110.013
Research integrity0.0160.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations127
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsia OpenSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207