P.032 The impact of waiting time on the assessment of the first seizure onset in pediatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Childhood epilepsy has increased in global incidence. Children with epilepsy require immediate healthcare evaluation and monitoring. Waiting times between first seizure onset and pediatric neurology assessment may impact seizure outcome at follow-up. Quality of medical care for children with first seizure onset will be assessed and the impact of pediatric neurology clinic waiting times on seizure outcomes will be determined Methods: This retrospective study, based on chart review, includes patients with first seizure evaluation at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon between January 2012 and December 2015. The interim period before first assessment and other factors were studied in relation to seizure outcome on follow-up. Results: 1158 patients were assessed. 378 (32.6%) patients had first seizure clinic assessment. 197 (52%) had epileptic events. 181 (48%) had non-epileptic events. The mean age of patients was 8.8 years. The mean waiting time for assessment by a pediatric neurologist was 4.33 months. The mean duration of follow-up was 20.9 months. At the last seizure assessment, 132 patients were free of seizures and 65 patients had a recurrence of seizures. Conclusions: First seizure assessment is crucial for management of children with epilepsy. Waiting time and other factors may influence seizure outcome, representing opportunities to improve standard medical care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".