MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399357855 · doi:10.1177/08830738241259052

Current Evidence: Seizures in Extremely Low Gestational Age Newborns (ELGANs)

2024· review· en· W4399357855 on OpenAlexaff
Mandeep Rana, Juan Diego Vega Gonzales-Portillo, Cecil D. Hahn, Monideep Dutt, Iván Sánchez-Fernández, Rinat Jonas, Laurie M. Douglass, Alcy Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpileptogenesisPediatricsNeonatal seizureGestational ageEpilepsyIncidence (geometry)PregnancyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extremely low gestational age newborns (ELGANs) are born at or below 28 weeks of gestational age. Despite improved obstetric care, the incidence of preterm birth continues to rise in advanced countries. Preterm birth remains a major cause of infant mortality, and for infants who survive, neonatal seizures are a significant predictor of later neurologic morbidity. However, little is known about risk factors for neonatal seizures in ELGANs. Understanding the association between neonatal seizures and the development of other neurologic disorders is important given the increasing prevalence of ELGANs. Identifying risk factors that contribute to the development of neonatal seizures in ELGANs may offer insights into novel mechanisms of epileptogenesis in the developing brain and improvements in the prevention or treatment of seizures in preterm infants, including ELGANs. In this literature review, we outline the limitations of epidemiologic studies of neonatal seizures in ELGANs and discuss risk factors for neonatal seizures.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207