Ketogenic Diet: Parental Experiences and Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ketogenic diet may be difficult for some patients and their families to implement and can impact physical, emotional, and social well-being. METHODS: Through principles of fundamental qualitative description, we completed an exploratory study on parents' experiences and expectations on the use and efficacy of the ketogenic diet for children with medically refractory epilepsy. RESULTS: Seventeen parents (10 mothers and 7 fathers) of 12 children with epilepsy participated. At the time of the interview, parents had experienced an average of 25 months of ketogenic diet treatment for their child (range 2 months to 98 months). Half of the caregivers learned about the ketogenic diet from their neurologist, whereas the remainder had heard about it from another source (ie, the internet). Most caregivers' (n = 13) diet expectations were related to seizure control. However, child development (n = 5) and quality of life (n = 5) were also crucial to some. Physical impacts of the diet were most commonly gastrointestinal for children (n = 9). Social and emotional effects were noted in some older children with typical development. Most caregivers described negative impacts on finances (n = 15), relationships (n = 14), and emotional well-being (ie, stress) (n = 12). Caregivers benefited from the ketogenic diet team's regular communication, close follow-up, and family-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impacts that the ketogenic diet may have on caregivers' emotional and social well-being, the positive impacts of the diet were felt to outweigh any perceived risks. Effects (both positive and negative) on quality of life and child development (eg, social, emotional, cognitive) are essential for caregivers and require additional investigation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".