Implications for driving based on the risk of seizures after ischaemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In addition to other stroke-related deficits, the risk of seizures may impact driving ability after stroke. Methods We analysed data from a multicentre international cohort, including 4452 adults with acute ischaemic stroke and no prior seizures. We calculated the Chance of Occurrence of Seizure in the next Year (COSY) according to the SeLECT2.0prognostic model. We considered COSY<20% safe for private and <2% for professional driving, aligning with commonly used cut-offs. Results Seizure risks in the next year were mainly influenced by the baseline risk-stratified according to the SeLECT2.0score and, to a lesser extent, by the poststroke seizure-free interval (SFI). Those without acute symptomatic seizures (SeLECT2.00–6 points) had low COSY (0.7%–11%) immediately after stroke, not requiring an SFI. In stroke survivors with acute symptomatic seizures (SeLECT2.03–13 points), COSY after a 3-month SFI ranged from 2% to 92%, showing substantial interindividual variability. Stroke survivors with acute symptomatic status epilepticus (SeLECT2.07–13 points) had the highest risk (14%–92%). Conclusions Personalised prognostic models, such as SeLECT2.0, may offer better guidance for poststroke driving decisions than generic SFIs. Our findings provide practical tools, including a smartphone-based or web-based application, to assess seizure risks and determine appropriate SFIs for safe driving.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".