MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neonatal Seizures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for the Management

2024· review· en· W4391293052 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Spénard, Carlos Ivan Salazar Cerda, Mehmet Nevzat Çizmeci

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Archives of Pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyNeonatal intensive care unitIntensive care medicinePediatricsLow and middle income countriesDeveloping countryPsychiatryEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal seizures are a common cause of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and a significant source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Over the recent decades, there have been significant improvements in perinatal and neonatal medicine and electroencephalograp hic monitoring that have enhanced the diagnosis and treatment of neonatal seizures in highincome countries. However, the management of neonatal seizures remains a major challenge in low- to middle-income countries, where the availabilityof resources is limited. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive review of the current evidence on the etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of neonatal seizures and to offer practical management recommendations that could be implemented in resource-limited settings. Cite this article as: Spenard S, Ivan Salazar Cerda C, Cizmeci MN. Neonatal seizures in low and middleincome countries: Review of the literature and recommendations for the management. Turk Arch Pediatr. 2024;59(1):13-22.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish Archives of PediatricsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207