MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483301048 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000321

American Clinical Neurophysiology Society Guideline 5: Minimum Technical Standards for Pediatric Electroencephalography

2016· article· en· W2483301048 on OpenAlexaff
John Kuratani, Phillip L. Pearl, Lucy R. Sullivan, R. Riel-Romero, Janna Cheek, Mark M. Stecker, Daniel San‐Juan, Olga Selioutski, Saurabh R. Sinha, Frank W. Drislane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsShared Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineHyperventilationElectroencephalographyMedicineSedationClinical neurophysiologyProvocation testPediatricsIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This revision to the EEG Guidelines is an update incorporating the current electroencephalography technology and practice. It was previously published as Guideline 2. Similar to the prior guideline, it delineates the aspects of Guideline 1 that should be modified for neonates and young children. Recording conditions for photic stimulation and hyperventilation are revised to enhance the provocation of epileptiform discharges. Revisions recognize the difficulties involved in performing an EEG under sedation in young children. Recommended neonatal EEG montages are displayed for the reduced set of electrodes only since the montages in Guideline 3 should be used for a 21-electrode 10-20 system array. Neonatal documentation is updated to use current American Academy of Pediatrics term "postmenstrual age" rather than "conceptional age." Finally, because therapeutic hypothermia alters the prognostic value of neonatal EEG, the necessity of documenting the patient's temperature at the time of recording is emphasized.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207