SUDEP classification: Discordances between forensic investigators and epileptologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) diagnosis rates between North American SUDEP Registry (NASR) epileptologists and original death investigators, to determine degree and causes of discordance. In 220 SUDEP cases with post-mortem examination, we recorded the epileptologist adjudications and medical examiner- and coroner- (ME/C) listed causes of death (CODs). COD diagnosis concordance decreased with NASR's uncertainty in the SUDEP diagnosis: highest for Definite SUDEP (84%, n = 158), lower in Definite Plus (50%, n = 36), and lowest in Possible (0%, n = 18). Rates of psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and toxicology findings for drugs of abuse were all higher in discordant cases than concordant cases. Possible SUDEP cases, an understudied group, were significantly older, and had higher rates of cardiac, drug, or toxicology findings than more certain SUDEP cases. With a potentially contributing or competing COD, ME/Cs favored non-epilepsy-related diagnoses, suggesting a bias toward listing CODs with structural or toxicological findings; SUDEP has no pathognomonic features. A history of epilepsy should always be listed on death certificates and autopsy reports. Even without an alternate COD, ME/Cs infrequently classified COD as "SUDEP." Improved collaboration and communication between epilepsy and ME/C communities improve diagnostic accuracy, as well as bereavement and research opportunities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".