Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To conduct a pan-European survey amongst people with epilepsy to define issues of importance in their daily lives, correlated with duration of epilepsy, age, as well as other characteristics.Questions allowed challenges to traditional assumptions of therapy goals.Method: We collaborated with The International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE) to develop an easy-to-complete Web-based survey, distributed through the IBE's country chapter websites and by e-mail.The predominantly multiple-choice questionnaire was available in 12 different languages.Questions primarily focused on personal experiences of the specific impact of epilepsy, individual management, and on which aspects actually mattered most to them.Issues raised provided opportunities for patients to consider their personal needs and goals in contrast to traditional assumptions of therapeutic goals (doctor's point of view).All survey responses were deidentified and collated on a central database for analysis.The scope of the survey allowed for multiple sub-analyses including demographical stratifications.Results: Preliminary results of the first round of the survey will be presented. Conclusion:The survey findings will provide an insight to the real needs and challenges of people with epilepsy and may play a part in shaping future management strategies.Supported by Eisai Europe Limited.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.717 | 0.526 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".