MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320710041 · doi:10.33588/rn.7604.2022386

Depresión en pacientes con epilepsia. Conceptos fisiopatológicos, clínicos y estrategias terapéuticas

2023· review· es· W4320710041 on OpenAlexaff
Elma Paredes‐Aragón, Ramiro Ruiz‐Garcia, Jorge G. Burneo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Neurología · 2023
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyMedicineDepression (economics)AntidepressantPsychiatryElectroconvulsive therapyCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Depression and epilepsy are highly prevalent diseases and represent a worldwide public health problem. DEVELOPMENT: A non-systematic search was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE) considering current topics in pathophysiological, clinical concepts and treatment strategies in people with epilepsy and depression. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Depression and epilepsy have a bidirectional relationship and share some pathophysiological substrates. Depression is the most common neuropsychiatric manifestation in epilepsy; screening and diagnosis are important to start a timely treatment. Antidepressant drugs does not increase the frequency of seizures, on the contrary, it is believed that antidepressants may help reducing the frequency of seizures. In addition, other antidepressant therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and neuromodulation may be also effective for reducing the frequency of seizures. However the evidence regarding antidepressant treatment(s) in epilepsy is limited and further prospective studies are needed to better characterize the possible therapeutic strategies and develop standarized treatment guidelines.

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de NeurologíaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207