Phenotyping of Review-of-Systems Responses to Differentiate Functional Seizures From Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the populations of patients with functional seizures (FS) and epileptic seizures (ES) are extremely heterogeneous with multiple etiologies and phenotypes, patients with FS have increased somatic sensitivity and report more positive complaints on review-of-systems questionnaires (ROSQs). We evaluated if data-driven clustering and projection analysis could identify symptom phenotypes that could differentiate between patients with FS and ES. The dataset included all adult patients admitted from January 2006 to March 2020 for video-electroencephalography with available ROSQs (N = 877). Latent clusters and axes of variation in ROSQ responses were evaluated using multiple well-established methods. Leave-one-out cross-validation was used to evaluate if logistic regression using information could differentiate patients with FS from ES. When evaluating individual symptom response and proportion of positive responses, the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was 62% (95% CI, 53%-69%) and 72% (CI, 65%-78%), respectively. The best AUC achieved by phenotyping methods was 74%. The patterns of clusters and components reflected properties of each analysis and did not correlate with assigned "system" from the ROSQ or other interpretations. The overall proportion of positive responses was the most informative metric to differentiate patients with FS compared to ES. While both FS and ES are heterogeneous populations with multiple subgroups, these subgroups were not meaningfully identified based on ROSQ symptoms. The limited overall predictive accuracy and AUC suggests that, in absence of other supporting data, ROSQ responses in patients with FS and ES were not clinically useful for screening.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".