Clinical Significance of Incidental Rolandic Spikes in Children With Absence Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Absence epilepsy and benign epilepsy of childhood with central temporal spikes are common childhood epilepsy syndromes. Although 3-Hz generalized spike-wave discharges are almost always associated with absence seizures, rolandic spikes can be present in individuals without rolandic seizures. The co-occurrence of 3-Hz generalized spike-wave and rolandic spikes is very rare. Our objective was to compare clinical features of patients with absence epilepsy with and without rolandic spikes, to determine if the additional feature of rolandic spikes has any clinical significance. Methods: Clinical information of 17 children with absence epilepsy and rolandic spikes was compared to an age-matched control group of 90 children with absence epilepsy. Results: Although most patients had excellent seizure control at follow-up, epilepsy comorbidities (cognitive and emotional problems) were observed. Comparing study vs control groups, there was no difference with anxiety (2 [11.8%] vs 8 [9%]), behavioral issues (4 [23.5%] vs 10 [11%]), mood disorders (0 vs 2 [2%]), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (4 [24%] vs 10 [11%]). Significant differences were also observed: more global-developmental (5 [29%] vs 5 [6%], P < .009) and expressive-language (4 [24%] vs 5 [6%], P < .034) delay and more difficulties with school performance (11 [65%] vs 32 [36%], P < .025), especially with language-related tasks (6 [35%] vs 5 [6%], P < .001). Conclusion: Our results confirm the presence of additional epilepsy comorbidities in patients with absence epilepsy when rolandic spikes are present. Rolandic spikes in patients with absence epilepsy may be a marker of additional cognitive challenges that physicians should be aware of.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".