MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396871972 · doi:10.1177/15357597241253414

Are We Doing Enough to Prevent SUDEP?

2024· letter· en· W4396871972 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle M. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical Incidents, Nocturnal Supervision, and Caregiver Knowledge on SUDEP in Patients With Dravet Syndrome: A Prospective Multicenter Study in Germany Maltseva M, Rosenow F, Schubert-Bas S, Flege S, Wolff M, von Spiczak S, Trollmann R, Syrbe S, Ruf S, Polster T, Neubauer BA, Mayer T, Jacobs J, Kurlemann G, Kluger G, Klotz KA, Kieslich M, Kay L, Hornemann F, Bettendorf U, Bertsche A, Bast T, Strzelczyk A. Epilepsia . 2024;65(1):115-126. doi: 10.1111/epi.17799 . PMID: 37846648 Objective: The aim was to investigate the monitoring, interventions, and occurrence of critical, potentially life-threatening incidents in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS) and caregivers’ knowledge about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Methods: This multicenter, cross-sectional study of patients with DS and their caregivers in Germany consisted of a questionnaire and prospective diary querying the disease characteristics and demographic data of patients and caregivers. Results: Our analysis included 108 questionnaires and 82 diaries. Patients with DS were 49.1% male (n = 53), with a mean age of 13.5 (SD ± 10.0 years) and primary caregivers were 92.6% (n = 100) female, with a mean age of 44.7 (SD ± 10.6 years). Monitoring devices were used regularly by 75.9% (n = 82) of caregivers, and most monitored daily/nightly. Frequently used devices were pulse oximeters (64.6%), baby monitors (64.6%), thermometers (24.1%), and Epi-Care (26.8%). Younger caregiver and patient age and history of status epilepticus were associated with increased use of monitoring, and 81% of monitor users reported having avoided a critical incident with nocturnal monitoring. The need for resuscitation due to cardiac or respiratory arrest was reported by 22 caregivers (20.4%), and most cases (72.7%) were associated with a seizure. Caregivers reported frequently performing interventions at night, including oropharyngeal suction, oxygenation, personal hygiene, and change of body position. Most caregivers were well informed about SUDEP (n = 102; 94%) and monitored for a lateral or supine body position; however, only 39.8% reported receiving resuscitation training, whereas 52.8% (n = 57) knew what to do in case the child’s breathing or heart activity failed. Significance: Critical incidents and the need for resuscitation are reported frequently by caregivers and may be related to high mortality and SUDEP rates in DS. Resuscitation training is welcomed by caregivers and should be continuously provided. Oxygen monitoring devices are frequently used and considered useful by caregivers.

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)0.004
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currentsSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207