MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406578694 · doi:10.1111/epi.18267

New onset refractory status epilepticus: Long‐term outcomes beyond seizures

2025· review· en· W4406578694 on OpenAlexafffund
Poul H. Espino, Krista Eschbach, Leah J. Blank, Mackenzie C. Cervenka, Eyal Muscal, Raquel Farias‐Moeller, Emily J. Gilmore, Margaret Gopaul, Hiba A. Haider, Aurélie Hanin, Lawrence J. Hirsch, Marissa Kellogg, Gerhard Kluger, Soon‐Tae Lee, Alexandria E. Melendez‐Zaidi, Vincent Navarro, Audrey Oliger, Elena Pasini, Gitta Reuner, Cynthia Sharpe, Zubeda Sheikh, Leon Steigleder, Claude Steriade, Coral M. Stredny, Adam Strzelczyk, Olga Taraschenko, Andreas van Baalen, Sarah A. Vinette, Ronny Wickström, Nora Wong, Ji Yeoun Yoo, Teneille Gofton

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersUCB PharmaNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeGenentechInstitut ServierEpilepsiatutkimussäätiöDesitin ArzneimittelServierSwebilius FoundationAngelini PharmaVitafloPhilippe FoundationEisaiJazz PharmaceuticalsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDanonePediatric Epilepsy Research FoundationCelltrionAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)NeuropsychologyEpilepsyPsychiatryMoodPsychologySet (abstract data type)PediatricsMedicineCognitionPsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose and prioritize important outcome domains that should be considered for future research investigating long-term outcomes (LTO) after new onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE). The study was led by the international NORSE Institute LTO Working Group. First, literature describing the LTO of NORSE survivors was identified using a PubMed search and summarized to identify knowledge gaps. Subsequently, a consensus-building process was performed to prioritize and rank important LTO domains for further research. The prioritization of LTO domains was qualitative, enabling the expert panel to generate ideas, share opinions, and provide reasons for the rankings. A second round took place to allow expansion and agreement regarding specific details for each domain. Outcomes were classified into eight main domains: (1) Function: Neuropsychological, Neurological (other than seizures), and Psychiatric (mood and behavior); (2) Quality of Life; (3) Epilepsy; (4) Nonneurological (medical); (5) Social; (6) Caregiver Burden; (7) Long-Term Mortality; and (8) Health Care System Impact. In addition, the working group suggested obtaining outcome measures for each domain at 6 months and 1 year after discharge and annually thereafter until stability has been reached. There are no currently established time frames set for when LTO in NORSE begin or plateau, and previously there existed no consensus regarding which LTO should be considered. This consensus process identifies and recommends NORSE LTO domains that should be considered in future research studies to provide more consistent results that can be compared between studies. Survivors of NORSE should be evaluated serially and at fixed points over time to maximize our understanding of the recovery trajectory for all LTO domains. Establishing reliable and standardized data describing LTO (beyond seizures) after NORSE will support discussions with families during the acute stages, prognostication, the development of targeted management strategies for survivors, and future comparative research globally helping to identify biomarkers that may predict LTO.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207