MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205977948 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2021.304

P.022 The effect of vagus nerve stimulation on the quality of sleep in medically refractory epileptic patients

2021· article· en· W4205977948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jai Seth, Ana Suller Martí

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVagus nerve stimulationMedicineEpilepsyObstructive sleep apneaMeta-analysisSleep apneaAnesthesiaVagus nerveStimulationInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The quality of sleep is frequently impacted in patients with epilepsy. Vagus Nerve Stimulation is a relatively common treatment used in patients with medically resistant epilepsy. Some studies show an improvement in quality of life, however, there is limited data on the impact on sleep quality. Methods: A database analysis was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane to find studies that examined the VNS’s effect on quality of sleep in medically resistant epilepsy. These studies included randomized clinical trails, case studies or reports, cohort studies, and systematic reviews. Results: 75 papers were reviewed and 16 studies from eight countries were included in the analysis. A total of 93 patients with ages ranged from 10 – 49 were included. Analyzing the change in the quality of sleep after VNS was evaluated using Multiple Sleep Latency Test. The literature showed that at low stimulus intensities, VNS treatment improves daytime sleepiness in patients. However, VNS setting titration has a dose-dependent effect on obstructive sleep apnea where higher VNS frequencies are related to higher apnea events. Conclusions: Limited data is available on the impact of VNS on the quality of sleep. Further studies are required to evaluate the improvement of sleep in patients with VNS.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207