SUDEP counseling: Where do we stand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the leading cause of epilepsy-related death in children and adults living with epilepsy. Several recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended that all individuals living with epilepsy and their caregivers be informed about SUDEP as a part of routine epilepsy counseling. Furthermore, several studies over the last two decades have explored the state of SUDEP counseling. Patients with epilepsy and their families want to be informed about the risk of SUDEP at or near the time of diagnosis, and preferably in person. Despite guideline recommendations, many pediatric and adult neurologists do not routinely inform individuals with epilepsy and their families about SUDEP. Some neurologists discuss SUDEP with only a subset of patients with epilepsy, such as those with risk factors like frequent generalized or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, nocturnal seizures, noncompliance, or medically refractory epilepsy. Proponents of routine SUDEP counseling argue that patients with epilepsy and their families have a "right to know" and that counseling may positively impact epilepsy self-management (i.e., behavioral modification and risk reduction). Some neurologists still believe that SUDEP counseling may cause unnecessary stress and anxiety for patients and their families (although this is erroneous) and that they also have a "right not to know." This narrative review explores the current gaps in SUDEP counseling, patients' and caregivers' perspectives of SUDEP counseling, and SUDEP prevention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads 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".