Big data research is everyone's research—Making epilepsy data science accessible to the global community: Report of the <scp>ILAE</scp> big data commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy care generates multiple sources of high-dimensional data, including clinical, imaging, electroencephalographic, genomic, and neuropsychological information, that are collected routinely to establish the diagnosis and guide management. Thanks to high-performance computing, sophisticated graphics processing units, and advanced analytics, we are now on the cusp of being able to use these data to significantly improve individualized care for people with epilepsy. Despite this, many clinicians, health care providers, and people with epilepsy are apprehensive about implementing Big Data and accompanying technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). Practical, ethical, privacy, and climate issues represent real and enduring concerns that have yet to be completely resolved. Similarly, Big Data and AI-related biases have the potential to exacerbate local and global disparities. These are highly germane concerns to the field of epilepsy, given its high burden in developing nations and areas of socioeconomic deprivation. This educational paper from the International League Against Epilepsy's (ILAE) Big Data Commission aims to help clinicians caring for people with epilepsy become familiar with how Big Data is collected and processed, how they are applied to studies using AI, and outline the immense potential positive impact Big Data can have on diagnosis and management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".