MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888026974 · doi:10.1177/1098612x18791874

Recurrent seizures in cats: Treatment – which antiepileptic drugs are recommended?

2018· review· en· W2888026974 on OpenAlexaff
Michal Hazenfratz, Susan Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCATSStatus epilepticusMedicineSeizure DisordersEpilepsyIntensive care medicinePopulationPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practical relevance: Seizures are one of the most common neurological problems recognized in cats, affecting approximately 1-3% of the general population. Treatment options and prognosis are closely related to the underlying cause, so it is important that veterinarians are familiar with the diagnostic approach to cats with seizures and options for medical management. Series outline: This is the second of a two-part article series that reviews the diagnosis and treatment of seizures in cats. Part 2 describes chronic medical treatment options and prognosis for cats with recurrent seizures, and acute treatment of status epilepticus. AUDIENCE: This review of recurrent seizures in cats is intended for all veterinarians who are facing the challenges of seizure diagnosis and management in the feline patient. Evidence base: Recommendations for diagnosis and management of feline seizure disorders have historically been extrapolated from the canine and human literature. The information and guidance provided in this two-part series is based on a review of the recent published literature addressing seizure disorders and antiepileptic treatment in cats, as well as the authors' clinical experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Feline Medicine and SurgerySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207