Underutilization of Neurodiagnostic Resources in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of Recommended Neurodiagnostic Evaluation Among Patients With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Matthew Spotnitz, Cameron D Ekanayake, Anna Ostropolets, Guy M McKhann, Hyunmi Choi, Ruth Ottman, Alfred I Neugut, George Hripcsak, Karthik Natarajan, Brett E Youngerman. JAMA Neurol . 2024;81(5):499–506. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0551 . PMID: 38557864 Importance: Interdisciplinary practice parameters recommend that patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) undergo comprehensive neurodiagnostic evaluation, including presurgical assessment. Reporting from specialized centers suggests long delays to referral and underuse of surgery; however, longitudinal data are limited to characterize neurodiagnostic evaluation among patients with DRE in more diverse US settings and populations. Objective: To examine the rate and factors associated with neurodiagnostic studies and comprehensive evaluation among patients with DRE within 3 US cohorts. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model including US multistate Medicaid data, commercial claims data, and Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) electronic health record data. Patients meeting a validated computable phenotype algorithm for DRE between January 1, 2015, and April 1, 2020, were included. No eligible participants were excluded. Exposure: Demographic and clinical variables were queried. Main outcomes and measures: The proportion of patients receiving a composite proxy for comprehensive neurodiagnostic evaluation, including (1) magnetic resonance or other advanced brain imaging, (2) video-electroencephalography, and (3) neuropsychological evaluation within 2 years of meeting the inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 33 542 patients with DRE were included in the Medicaid cohort, 22 496 in the commercial insurance cohort, and 2741 in the CUMC database. A total of 31 516 patients (53.6%) were women. The proportion of patients meeting the comprehensive evaluation main outcome in the Medicaid cohort was 4.5% ( n = 1520); in the commercial insurance cohort, 8.0% ( n = 1796); and in the CUMC cohort, 14.3% ( n = 393). Video-electroencephalography (24.9% Medicaid, 28.4% commercial, and 63.2% CUMC) and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (35.6% Medicaid, 43.4% commercial, and 52.6% CUMC) were performed more regularly than neuropsychological evaluation (13.0% Medicaid, 16.6% commercial, and 19.2% CUMC) or advanced imaging (3.2% Medicaid, 5.4% commercial, and 13.1% CUMC). Factors independently associated with greater odds of evaluation across all 3 data sets included the number of inpatient and outpatient nonemergency epilepsy visits and focal rather than generalized epilepsy. Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study suggest there is a gap in the use of diagnostic studies to evaluate patients with DRE. Care setting, insurance type, frequency of nonemergency visits, and epilepsy type are all associated with evaluation. A common data model can be used to measure adherence to best practices across a variety of observational data sources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".