MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214263715 · doi:10.1111/epi.17122

Referral practices for epilepsy surgery in pediatric patients: A North American Study

2021· article· en· W3214263715 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Grace Buttle, Katherine Muir, Sajjad Dehnoei, Richard Webster, Albert Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralEpilepsyFamily medicineEpilepsy surgeryNeurologyLogistic regressionIntervention (counseling)PediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patients with epilepsy who do not respond to two trials of appropriate antiepileptic drugs are considered to have drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The International League Against Epilepsy recommends patients with DRE be referred for surgical evaluation; however, prior literature suggests this is an underutilized intervention, especially in the pediatric setting. This study captures practices of North American pediatric neurologists regarding the management of DRE and factors that may promote or limit referrals for epilepsy surgical evaluation. METHODS: A REDCap survey was distributed via the Child Neurology Society mailing list to pediatric neurologists practicing in North America. Ethics approval from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Ethics Board was granted prior to the start of data collection. RESULTS: Ninety-eight responses were included in the analysis; 77% of participants currently practice in the United States; 73.5% of respondents reported they would refer a patient for surgical consultation after two failed medications. Of all potential predictors tested in a binary logistic regression model, only annual referral volume predicted whether participants refer patients after three or more failed medications. Centers with high referral volume were 37% more likely to adhere to the guideline of referral after two failed medications. SIGNIFICANCE: Pediatric neurologists demonstrate fair knowledge of formal recommendations to refer patients for surgical evaluation after two failed medication trials, although referral rates remain unacceptably low. Participants continue to report that they would not refer patients with generalized electroencephalographic findings for surgical evaluation; this should continue to be addressed. Other modifiable factors reported, especially family perceptions of epilepsy surgery, should be prioritized when developing tools to enhance effective referrals and increase utilization of epilepsy surgery in the management of pediatric DRE.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207