MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293693887 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201229

Pearls & Oy-sters: Genetic Epilepsy

2022· article· en· W4293693887 on OpenAlexaff
Vanna Kazazian, Thiviya Selvanathan, Vann Chau, Emily W.Y. Tam, Steven P. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiologyMedicineElectroencephalographyNeuroimagingGenetic testingEpilepsyPediatricsSemiologyAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic epilepsies, such as KCNQ2 gene variants, although uncommon, are potential causes of neonatal seizures in infants with complex congenital heart disease (CHD). KCNQ2-related seizures commonly present as tonic posturing with autonomic changes and a distinctive amplitude-integrated EEG (aEEG) pattern with increase in amplitude, immediately followed by background suppression. Seizures are typically refractory to commonly used antiepileptics in this age group and respond best to sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine and fosphenytoin. We report the cases of 2 neonates with complex CHD who presented with seizures secondary to KCNQ2 gene variation and discuss how early recognition of clinical and EEG features led to early treatment and improved seizure burden. When investigating the etiology of neonatal seizures in the perioperative complex cardiac infant, genetic etiologies such as KCNQ2 variants should be considered, particularly in the absence of clinical examination and neuroimaging features consistent with brain injury. These 2 cases highlight the importance of a precision medicine approach using clinical examination and seizure semiology, bedside aEEG monitoring, genetic testing, and targeted treatments to improve patient care and outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207