MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210797607 · doi:10.14740/jnr.v11i5.703

An Observational Study of an Epilepsy Monitoring Unit in a Level 4 Epilepsy Center, Post-Implementation of the National Association of Epilepsy Centers 2010 Revised Guidelines

2021· article· en· W3210797607 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohankumar Kurukumbi, José A. García del Castillo, Tulsi Shah, Joanne Lau, B. K. Patel, Soumil Narayan, Laura Madarasz, Yun Fang, Caroline Shadowen, Divya Sahajwalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyMedicinePsychogenic diseaseObservational studyMedical recordEpilepsy surgeryDemographicsPsychological interventionRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Of the 2.7 - 3.4 million Americans estimated to have some form of epilepsy, approximately 25-30% of these individuals do not have adequate seizure control and suffer from intractable epilepsy. The objective of this study was to report outcomes of patients with epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions using data from a level 4 epilepsy center. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records for 433 EMU patient visits between January 2016 and May 2019 at a level 4 comprehensive epilepsy center. The EMU protocols followed in these admissions were those listed in the guidelines by the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC). Patients were monitored by a medical team that included electroencephalogram technicians, neurophysiologists, and epileptologists. Results: Of the 433 patients assessed, 384 met inclusion criteria. Mean length of stay in the EMU was 4 days. Of the patients, 73.4% had EMU stays resulting in new information which led to interventions including further diagnostic testing, surgical treatment, and medication changes. The most frequent intervention was a change in medication (68.8% of patients). Of the patients, 90.1% received a definitive diagnosis at the conclusion of their admission, with the most common diagnosis being epileptic seizures (66.7%), followed by non-epileptic physiologic events (14.3%) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (8.6%). Conclusions: This study sought to describe outcomes from patients who stayed in our level 4 epilepsy center’s EMU after the implementation of the revised NAEC guidelines made in 2010. We investigated patient demographics as well as diagnosis and/or treatment changes after the EMU stay. We conclude that under the new NAEC guidelines, an EMU admission remains diagnostically useful in identifying if a patient has epilepsy or not. Our goal for this retrospective review is to inform future prospective outcomes studies and add to the body of literature demonstrating an EMU evaluation as a valuable diagnostic tool for epilepsy patients. J Neurol Res. 2021;11(5):87-93 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr703

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.087 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207