MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Experiences with Premorbid SUDEP Discussion among Participants in the North American SUDEP Registry (NASR) (P6.361)

2016· article· en· W2476148352 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyra Doumlele, Jeffrey Buchhalter, Laura Gould, Orrin Devinsky, Elizabeth Donner, Tracy Dixon‐Salazar, David R. Fowler, Dale C. Hesdorffer, Cyndi Wright, Daniel J. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To examine experiences and attitudes toward a discussion of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among those who lost a family member to SUDEP. Background: More than half of epilepsy-related deaths are due to SUDEP. Surveys of both neurologists and persons with epilepsy (PWE) have shown that clinicians rarely discuss SUDEP with patients or caregivers. However, most patients and caregivers wish to know about the risk of SUDEP and routine disclosure of SUDEP risk has been recommended by several organizations. Methods: Participants were family members of deceased PWE enrolled in the North American SUDEP Registry (NASR), a clinical and biospecimen repository established in 2011 with participants in the U.S. and Canada. At enrollment, participants completed a detailed intake interview that includes discrete and open-ended questions on their own experience with SUDEP discussion. Final cause of death and epilepsy characteristics were determined from the interview and review of medical records. Results: As of October 2015, 100 cases of definite/probable SUDEP were enrolled in NASR and had intake interviews completed by a family member. Median age of death was 25 (1.75-70), 36[percnt] of the decedents were female. The median age of epilepsy onset was 9 years (0-65) and the median duration of epilepsy was 10.6 years. 18 (18[percnt]) of family members had heard of SUDEP beforehand; of those, SUDEP discussion was initiated by their neurologist in only 7 cases. Of those family members who had not been aware of SUDEP, 68.2[percnt] wished it had been discussed and 23.1[percnt] were unsure. Only 9 (9[percnt]) participants felt that they would not have wanted to know about SUDEP before their family member’s death. Conclusions: These findings support the observation that SUDEP is rarely discussed with PWE and the majority of families bereaved by SUDEP wished they were counseled about the risk.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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 venueNeurology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→