MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223530215 · doi:10.1177/03000605221081032

School performance in children at the time of new-onset seizures and at long-term follow-up: A retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4223530215 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Datta, Peter K. H. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyPediatricsCohortRetrospective cohort studyElectroencephalographypartial seizuresPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: School-performance difficulties (SPD) are common in children with epilepsy. The objectives of this study were to determine if the rate of SPD in children with seizures change from seizure-onset to follow-up and differ from children with psychiatric disorders. METHODS: School-aged children who required an initial electroencephalography (EEG) test in 2016 were reviewed and separated into two groups based on the presence or absence of seizures. Developmental delay and SPD were compared between groups at initial assessment and SPD was assessed after 2-4 years of follow-up. Analysis was also performed on a sub-set of patients with psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: At baseline, the rate of SPD was similar between the seizure (n = 146) and non-seizure (n = 332) groups [26% vs. 27%]. At follow-up, the seizure (n = 119) group had a significantly higher rate of SPD than the non-seizure (n = 215) group (54% vs. 43%). There was no difference in the rate of SPD between the seizure (n = 119) and psychiatric (n = 69) groups at baseline (31% vs. 43%) or follow-up (54% vs. 55%). CONCLUSION: Over time, children with recurrent seizures experience more SPD than children without seizures, but similar SPD to children with psychiatric disorders.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207