MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931681038 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.14223

Patterns of daily activity among young people with epilepsy

2019· article· en· W2931681038 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriel M. Ronen, Ian Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsEpilepsyYoung adultPopulationDemographicsMedicinePsychological interventionDemographyPhysical activityPsychologyGerontologyPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To: (1) explore how young people with epilepsy spend time on physical activity, screen-time, and sleep in a 24-hour period; (2) compare these findings to young people without epilepsy; and (3) evaluate the findings relative to the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for children and youth. METHOD: The study is based on Canadian data from the 2013 to 2014 'Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study' (HBSC), a cross-sectional sample of young people aged 10 to 17 years. Three groups participated: 163 young people with epilepsy, 3613 young people with non-neurological conditions, and 18 339 population norms. Self-reported activity data were compared across groups. RESULTS: Demographics were similar across groups. Young people with epilepsy spent 5.8 hours per week on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity versus 5.6 hours per week in population norms; 32% met the recommended 1 hour or more per day. Screen-time was 8.7 hours per day versus 7.4 hours per day in population norms; only 5.4% met the 2 hours or less per day recommendation. Sleep duration was 10.2 hours per day versus 9.8 hours per day in population norms, and 50.7% met the recommendation. Overall, 25.7% of young people with epilepsy did not meet any of the guidelines, 60.5% met one, 13.5% met two, and 0.3% met all three recommendations; whereas 2.8% of population norms and 2% of young people with non-neurological conditions met all three recommendations. INTERPRETATION: These data could inform future interventions and alert policy-makers, health care professionals, parents, educators, and advocacy-groups to the low adherence of young people with epilepsy with Canadian guidelines and their risk for poor health. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Young people with epilepsy adhere poorly to Canadian guidelines for daily sleep duration, physical activity, and sedentary screen time. Young people with epilepsy accumulate more screen-time than those with non-neurological conditions or population norms.

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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207