MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205540241 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2021.270

B.1 What Transition Skills Should be Targeted in Epilepsy Transition Clinics?

2021· article· en· W4205540241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Healy, Tadeu A. Fantaneanu, Sharon Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransition (genetics)Vulnerability (computing)EpilepsyAdult careMedicineRestructuringPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyYoung adultFamily medicinePediatricsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transition from pediatric to adult care can be a difficult time for adolescents with epilepsy. This period is often a period of extreme vulnerability and stress. As a result, research has recommended transition clinics to help these adolescents develop needed transition skills. However, the skills that need to be focused on remain unclear. Methods: Baseline transition skills in 113 adolescents with epilepsy, aged 14 to 18 (M= 16.46, male= 56) were analyzed. Results: Analyses showed that older adolescents showed significantly more transition skills than younger adolescents (F(4,108)=5.522, p=000). Although positive, older adolescents only scored, on average, 16.3/28 on the transition questionnaire; suggesting that many skills are still lacking, even at the time of transition. Specifically, although the majority of these older adolescents demonstrated being able to manage their condition independently (e.g., summarizing medical history, taking/knowing medications), these adolescents were less likely to demonstrate skills needed to be advocates for themselves and their health (e.g., asking questions, discussing concerns, speaking to the doctor instead of letting their parents). Conclusions: Results suggest it may be beneficial to restructure adolescent clinic visits; encouraging these patients to attend the initial portion of visits independently to help them feel more comfortable and confident championing for themselves.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207