Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 6-year-old boy with generalized epilepsy presented with super-refractory status epilepticus in the setting of a viral upper respiratory tract infection. Extensive evaluation, including brain magnetic resonance imaging, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, autoimmune encephalitis antibody panel, and metabolic/genetic testing, was unremarkable. Initially, he experienced recurrent electroclinical tonic and tonic-myoclonic seizures; with augmentation of medical therapy, these progressively evolved into seizures with a similar electrographic signature, but minimal clinical correlate (bradycardia and breathing pauses), indicating gradual uncoupling (Figure 1, Video 1). Electroclinical dissociation, or uncoupling, refers to the persistence of electrographic seizure activity on electroencephalogram without corresponding clinical manifestations. This phenomenon, mainly described in neonates, often follows treatment with anti-seizure medications, such as phenobarbital or phenytoin, although its underlying mechanism remains poorly understood.1 Differences in chloride transporter maturation across brain regions may contribute to selective inhibition of subcortical structures by GABAergic drugs, effectively suppressing convulsive activity while allowing electrographic cortical seizures to persist.2 Dr. Myers is or has been a site PI for studies sponsored by LivaNova and Ultragenyx, and sits or has sat on advisory boards for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AS2 Bio, Epilepsy Canada, Ring 20 Research and Support, and the Koolen-de Vries Syndrome Foundation. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data S1. Data S2. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Which of the following best describes uncoupling? What is a proposed mechanism for uncoupling following treatment with GABAergic drugs? Which of the following statements is correct? Answers may be found in the Supporting information.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".