MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953945733 · doi:10.1111/epi.16276

Forced normalization: A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2953945733 on OpenAlexafffund
Yamile Calle‐López, Lady Diana Ladino, Vanessa Benjumea‐Cuartas, Diana Marcela Castrillón‐Velilla, José Francisco Téllez‐Zenteno, Peter Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationRoyal University Hospital Foundation
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)PsychologyMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Forced normalization (FN) is an intriguing phenomenon characterized by the emergence of psychiatric disturbances following the establishment of seizure control or reduction in the epileptic activity in a patient with previous uncontrolled epilepsy. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics of the condition. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scielo from January 1953 to January 2018. Clinical, electrographic, and imaging data were gathered. We considered all outcomes in children and adults. We performed no meta-analyses due to the limited available data. RESULTS: Of 2606 abstracts identified, 36 fulfilled the FN diagnostic criteria; 193 FN episodes were evaluated and 77 of them were analyzed extensively. Sixty percent of cases were female. Mean age ± standard deviation (SD) was 28.3 ± 14.2 years. The majority of patients had focal (80%) symptomatic (44%) epilepsy. Most patients reported a high ictal frequency (58%) and were on polytherapy (51%). Patients presented psychosis (86.4%), mood disorders (25.8%), and dissociation (4.5%) as the main manifestations. In the psychosis group, persecutory (52.6%) and reference (47.3%) delusions were frequent. FN was provoked by an antiepileptic drug (AED) (48.5%) mainly levetiracetam, epilepsy surgery (31.8%), or vagus nerve stimulation (13.6%). Treatment was homogeneous including anticonvulsant withdrawal (47%) or taper (25%); antipsychotics were initiated in the majority of cases (73%). Psychiatric symptoms were partially controlled in 35%, with complete resolution of symptoms in the remaining 65% of cases. The majority of patients (87%) with AED trigger and withdrawal presented complete resolution of symptoms in comparison to 28.5% of patients triggered by surgery. SIGNIFICANCE: Forced normalization is an entity whose pathophysiology remains uncertain. Antipsychotic drug use does not predict complete resolution of psychiatric symptoms in comparison with AED withdrawal. Although there is a positive response to treatment in patients with FN triggered by drugs, the prognosis is obscure in patients with surgery triggered FN.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.008

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207