MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034396777 · doi:10.1177/0883073820931255

The Clinical Research Landscape of Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

2020· article· en· W3034396777 on OpenAlexaff
K. Julia Kaal, Magda Aguiar, Mark Harrison, Patrick J. McDonald, Judy Illes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialPsychological interventionEpilepsyVagus nerve stimulationIntervention (counseling)Drug trialRandomized controlled trialClinical study designDrug Resistant EpilepsyClinical PracticePhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineStimulationVagus nerve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical research landscape of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with a focus on neurotechnology. METHOD: We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using the terms "epilepsy" and "drug resistant" for studies including participants age 0-17 years. Returns were grouped by intervention (eg, neurotechnological, drug). Key trial features such as age range, trial status and outcomes were compared across interventions. RESULTS: We identified 101 registered trials with pediatric DRE patients. Thirty-two (32%) investigate neurotechnological interventions, devices, or diagnostic procedures; 13 (41%) are currently active. Among neurotechnology trials, 15 (46%) investigate vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, or deep brain stimulation; few are specific to children. Of the remaining 69 trials, 37 investigate a drug, 17 investigate a dietary therapy, and 15 investigate another intervention. Seizure frequency is the most frequent primary outcome measured in the trials identified. SIGNIFICANCE: The landscape of registered trials pertaining to pediatric DRE reflects a lag between clinical research and clinical practice, and highlights the need for timely evidence before novel neurotechnological interventions are widely adopted into clinical practice.

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207