Epilepsy research in Africa: A scoping review by the <scp>ILAE</scp> Pediatric Commission Research Advocacy Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of epilepsy in Africa, evaluation of epilepsy research trends on the continent is lacking. Without establishing effective research, improvement in care for people with epilepsy cannot be effectively strategized or targeted. METHODS: A scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature on epilepsy from Africa (1989-2019) was conducted. The aim was to understand from this what areas are well researched versus underresearched based on published epilepsy topics. RESULTS: A total of 1227 publications were identified and assessed. A significant increase in publications occurred over the 30 years assessed. African author leadership was evident in most reports. Nine countries had >50 publications identified; the remaining 45 countries had <50 or no publications. Research studies were typically of lower quality (case series and observational studies). Research themes were more focused on clinical epilepsy (descriptive observational studies) and social aspects (qualitative surveys). However, there were a number of unique and strong themes, specifically for neurocysticercosis and nodding syndrome, where strong research collaborations were evident, basic science understandings were explored, and interventional models were established. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite Africa being the continent with the most countries, it is lacking in the quantity, quality, and for some areas, relevance of research on epilepsy. Targeted approaches are needed to upskill the strength of research undertaken with more basic science, interventional, and randomized controlled studies. Themes of research need to promote those with unique African content but also to align with current international research areas that have impact on care delivery, such as epilepsy surgery and epilepsy genetics. For this to be possible, it is important to strengthen research hubs with collaborations that empower Africa to own its epilepsy research journey.
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 | 0.039 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".