Big data in epilepsy: Clinical and research considerations. Report from the Epilepsy Big Data Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy is a heterogeneous condition with disparate etiologies and phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. Clinical and research aspects are accordingly varied, ranging from epidemiological to molecular, spanning clinical trials and outcomes, gene and drug discovery, imaging, electroencephalography, pathology, epilepsy surgery, digital technologies, and numerous others. Epilepsy data are collected in the terabytes and petabytes, pushing the limits of current capabilities. Modern computing firepower and advances in machine and deep learning, pioneered in other diseases, open up exciting possibilities for epilepsy too. However, without carefully designed approaches to acquiring, standardizing, curating, and making available such data, there is a risk of failure. Thus, careful construction of relevant ontologies, with intimate stakeholder inputs, provides the requisite scaffolding for more ambitious big data undertakings, such as an epilepsy data commons. In this review, we assess the clinical and research epilepsy landscapes in the big data arena, current challenges, and future directions, and make the case for a systematic approach to epilepsy big data.
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 | 0.037 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".