MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Long-Term Outcome of Children with Refractory Epilepsy after a Vagal Nerve Stimulator Implantation: CHU Sainte-Justine Experience (P5.251)

2016· article· en· W2523941299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matsanga Leyila Kaseka, Philippe Major, Anne Lortie, Paola Diadori, Lionel Carmant

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)EpilepsyTerm (time)AnesthesiaPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of VNS after five years of follow up on seizure frequency and admission and emergency visit rates in children with refractory epilepsies. Background:Debate persists in Canada about the cost:benefit ratio of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) in patients with refractory epilepsy. However very few studies have addressed its long-term effectiveness beyond 24 months and none in a solely pediatric population. Methods:52 patients were implanted between 2000-2010. Of these, 31 were followed at CHU Sainte-Justine and 21 kept seizure diaries. Seizure frequency was compared at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 60 months of follow up using a multivariate ANOVA analysis. The hospitalization and emergency visit rates were calculated as the incidence between epilepsy onset and implantation and between implantation and last follow up. Results:Seizure frequency decreased by 58[percnt] at 6, 61[percnt] at 12, 53[percnt] at 24 and 63[percnt] at 60 months of follow up respectively (p< 0.001). The hospitalization and emergency visit rates decreased by 48.22 [percnt] and 30.27 [percnt] respectively (p< 0.001). The hospitalization rates after the implantation were constant without a significant difference between years. Conclusions:: In our population, VNS has a sustained impact on seizure frequency and hospitalization and emergency visit rates. This supports previous data from our group and others on the cost-effectiveness of the technique in children with refractory epilepsy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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 venueNeurologySame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207