Telephone triage and seizure management for community-based ID/DD: A research synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse and physician clinicians often guide seizure care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disability (ID/DD) through telephone triage. This article evaluated the evidence for epilepsy management tools with a focus on the telephone triage tool. Studies were included in the systematic review, data was extracted, followed by meta-aggregated findings. A rigorous methodological protocol was used as described by The Cochrane Collaboration. All quantitative or descriptive studies that included epilepsy management tools or protocols for persons with ID/DD living in a community-based setting were considered. No tools specific to ID/DD seizure management via telephone triage were discovered. Study results reveal a possible gap in clinical care. Research findings did support the use of telephone triage tools and epilepsy protocols for clinicians. These findings may improve seizure management by focusing ID/DD clinicians on the advantages of using such tools. Findings may also illuminate the need for seizure management tools specific to the ID/DD 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 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 | 0.032 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".