Epileptic Prodromes: Insights from Surveying 196 Patients and 150 Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Objective: Uncontrolled epilepsy creates a constant source of worry for patients and puts them at a high risk of injury. Identifying recurrent “premonitory” symptoms of seizures and using them to recalibrate seizure prediction algorithms may improve prediction performances. This study aimed to investigate patients’ ability to predict oncoming seizures based on preictal symptoms. Methods: Through an online survey, demographics and clinical characteristics (e.g., seizure frequency, epilepsy duration, and postictal symptom duration) were collected from people with epilepsy and caregivers across Canada. Respondents were asked to answer questions regarding their ability to predict seizures through warning symptoms. A total of 196 patients and 150 caregivers were included and were separated into three groups: those who reported warning symptoms within the 5 minutes preceding a seizure, prodromes (symptoms earlier than 5 minutes before seizure), and no warning symptoms. Results: Overall, 12.2% of patients and 12.0% of caregivers reported predictive prodromes ranging from 5 minutes to more than 24 hours before the seizures (median of 2 hours). The most common were dizziness/vertigo (28%), mood changes (26%), and cognitive changes (21%). Statistical testing showed that respondents who reported prodromes also reported significantly longer postictal recovery periods compared to those who did not report predictive prodromes (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Findings suggest that patients who present predictive seizure prodromes may be characterized by longer patient-reported postictal recovery periods. Studying the correlation between seizure severity and predictability and investigating the electrical activity underlying prodromes may improve our understanding of preictal mechanisms and ability to predict seizures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".