EEG of asymptomatic first‐degree relatives of patients with juvenile myoclonic, childhood absence and rolandic epilepsy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rolandic (RE), childhood absence (CAE) and juvenile myoclonic (JME) epilepsy encompass centrotemporal sharp waves, 3-Hz spike waves and >3-Hz spike or polyspike waves, respectively. Evidence abounds for genetic roles in all three syndromes, yet involved genes for the vast majority of patients remain unknown. It has long been proposed that while each disease is genetically complex, its specific EEG trait may represent a genetically simpler endophenotype. This meta-analysis of the literature focuses on the frequency of EEG traits in clinically unaffected first-degree relatives towards determining inheritance patterns of the EEG endophenotypes. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for protocols (PRISMA-P) and searched Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Following extensive screening, 15 studies were included with a total of 3,858 asymptomatic relatives. The prevalence of 'abnormal' EEG waves was 21%, 42% and 33% for JME, CAE and RE, respectively, close to what would be expected based on Mendelian inheritance. However, breaking down the reported EEG abnormalities, most consisted not of the respective EEG signature traits -prevalences of which were as low as 5%- but of non-specific EEG 'abnormalities'/variants. Prevalence of non-specific EEG 'abnormalities'/variants in the general population ranges from 0.1 to 10%. Underlying this 100-fold-wide range is a spectrum of what is considered 'abnormal' or variant. The prevalences of 'abnormalities'/variants in asymptomatic siblings in RE, CAE and JME significantly exceed even the highest value in the general population and fall within Mendelian expectations. These results suggest that EEG 'abnormalities'/variants shared with the general population are enriched in the three syndromes and are endophenotypes inherited in a genetically simple near-Mendelian fashion. Future work with modern EEG variant definitions should uncover genetic variants contributing to neuronal hypersynchrony in epilepsy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".