MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751261108

Bone health in adults with epilepsy

2017· dissertation· en· W2751261108 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haya Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyBone healthMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryOsteoporosisInternal medicineBone mineral
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy has been associated with an increased fracture risk by various studies in the literature. This is attributed to the decreased bone mineral density (BMD) linked to the anti–epileptic drugs (AEDs) that are used to control seizures. As increasing age is also associated with decreasing BMD, older adults with epilepsy are at particular risk for fracture. There is no consensus on managing this risk and many epilepsy care guidelines do not address the risk at all. This is understandable considering the lack of adequate research on counteractive measures in this specific population. Moreover, though a prevailing theory explains the observed decreased BMD to be a result of AEDs reducing active vitamin D levels, the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation as a protective measure does not have robust evidence nor is there an agreed upon treatment regimen. The proposed project will aim to fill the gaps in the research and establish groundwork for future research on prevention and treatment by: examining the existing literature on vitamin D supplementation for bone health in adults with epilepsy; investigating the prevalence of osteoprotective behaviours and their impact on fracture occurrence in older Canadian adults with and without epilepsy; and determining the prevalence of vitamin D supplementation in the older adult Canadian epileptic population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207