MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #1 of "Lacosamide adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures: a meta-analysis (v0.1)"

2013· peer-review· en· W4238176434 on OpenAlexaff
E Russo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLacosamideAdjunctive treatmentMedicineEpilepsyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lacosamide adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures: a meta-analysisBackground: The relative efficacy and safety of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy compared to other antiepileptic drugs has not been well established.Objective: To determine if lacosamide provides improved efficacy and safety, reduced length of hospital stay and improved quality of life compared with other anti-epileptic therapies for adults with partial-onset 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 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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.020
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.007

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→