P.061 Exploring emergency department visits in adolescents with epilepsy and mild intellectual disabilities (MID)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada, individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) make up approximately 25% of the epilepsy population. Despite making up only a small portion, adult hospitalization data in Canada shows that individuals with ID are significantly more likely to be seen in the ED, be hospitalized, and to die as a result of epilepsy and epilepsy complications, than individuals with typical cognitive development. Data looking at ED visits in adolescents with epilepsy and varying cognitive abilities is extremely limited. Methods: To address this, a retrospective chart review of 122 adolescents (42 MID and 80 typical cognitive development) with epilepsy between the ages of 14 and 18 was done. Results: Results showed that adolescents with typical cognitive development had significantly more ED visits (p=.006), and seizure related ED visits (p= .008) than adolescents with MID. Despite the reasons for ED visits not significantly differing between the two groups, adolescents with MID had significantly longer ED visits (p=.023). Finally, when looking exclusively at the MID group, results showed that females were significantly more likely to be seen at the ED than males (p=.001). Conclusions: Results suggest that ED visit frequencies differ among adults and adolescents with ID, potentially suggesting the presence of unique protective factors for adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".