MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311671154 · doi:10.1111/epi.17476

Does the ketogenic ratio matter when using ketogenic diet therapy in pediatric epilepsy?

2022· review· en· W4311671154 on OpenAlexaff
Suvasini Sharma, Robyn Whitney, Eric H. Kossoff, Rajesh RamachandranNair

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKetogenic dietKetosisEpilepsyMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyPediatricsGlycemicDiabetes mellitusPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ketogenic diet (KD) is a widely used therapeutic option for individuals with medically refractory epilepsy. As the diet's name implies, ketosis is a historically important component of the diet, but it is not well understood how important ketosis is for seizure control. The ketogenic ratio is defined as the ratio of fat to carbohydrate plus protein by weight in the diet (grams). Traditionally, the classic KD contains a 4:1 ratio, and a very high proportion of fat in the diet. The classic KD, with its high proportion of fat and limited carbohydrate intake can be restrictive for patients with epilepsy. Recently, there is experience with use of lower ketogenic ratios and less-restrictive diets such as the modified Atkins diet and the low glycemic index treatment. In this narrative review, we examine the role of ketosis and ketogenic ratios in determining the efficacy of the KD in children with epilepsy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207