MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807121077 · doi:10.1002/epi4.12234

Common data elements (CDEs) for preclinical epilepsy research: Introduction to CDEs and description of core CDEs. A TASK3 report of the ILAE/AES joint translational task force

2018· article· en· W2807121077 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lauren C. Harte‐Hargrove, Aristea S. Galanopoulou, Jacqueline A. French, Asla Pitkänen, Vicky Whittemore, Helen E. Scharfman

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSeventh Framework ProgrammeNational Institutes of HealthEpilepsy FoundationSunovionH. Lundbeck A/SBiogenPfizerYork UniversityEpilepsiatutkimussäätiöUpsher-SmithZynerba PharmaceuticalsAcademy of FinlandCerecorAcorda TherapeuticsEpilepsy SocietyGW PharmaceuticalsGlaxoSmithKlineZogenixEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of DefenseNew York State Office of Mental HealthConcert PharmaceuticalsCitizens United for Research in EpilepsyAmerican Epilepsy SocietyEisai
KeywordsMedicineCRFSTask forceTranslational researchEpilepsyCore (optical fiber)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePathologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Common data elements (CDEs) are becoming more common as more areas of preclinical research have generated CDEs. Herein we provide an overview of the progress to date in generating CDEs for preclinical epilepsy research. Currently there are CDEs that have been developed for Physiology (in vivo), Behavior, Pharmacology, and Electroencephalography (EEG). Together the CDEs and methodologic considerations associated with these CDEs are laid out in consecutive manuscripts published in Epilepsia Open, each describing CDEs for their respective topic area. In addition to the overview of progress for the 4 subjects, core characteristics (Core CDEs) are described and explained. Data collection using a case report form (CRF) is described, and considerations that are involved in using the CDEs and CRFs are discussed.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.097 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsia OpenSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207