MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550033698 · doi:10.1111/epi.13621

WONOEP appraisal: Imaging biomarkers in epilepsy

2016· review· en· W2550033698 on OpenAlexafffund
Erwin A. van Vliet, Stefanie Dedeurwaerdere, Andrew J. Cole, Alon Friedman, Matthias J. Koepp, Heidrun Potschka, Riikka Immonen, Asla Pitkänen, Paolo Federico

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentUniversiteit AntwerpenAstellas PharmaAcademy of FinlandMeiji Seika PharmaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftVlaamse regeringMeso Scale DiagnosticsEuropean CommissionFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHorizon 2020Queen Elisabeth Medical FoundationEpilepsy Foundation
KeywordsEpileptogenesisEpilepsyNeuroimagingNeuroscienceBiomarkerMedicinePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroimaging offers a wide range of opportunities to obtain information about neuronal activity, brain inflammation, blood-brain barrier alterations, and various molecular alterations during epileptogenesis or for the prediction of pharmacoresponsiveness as well as postoperative outcome. Imaging biomarkers were examined during the XIII Workshop on Neurobiology of Epilepsy (XIII WONOEP) organized in 2015 by the Neurobiology Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). Here we present an extended summary of the discussed issues and provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the biomarker potential of different neuroimaging approaches for 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207