MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413560256 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200522

Continuous EEG Monitoring in Canadian Hospitals

2025· article· en· W4413560256 on OpenAlexaffabout
Naomi Niznick, Hanna Tang, Julie Kromm, Victoria McCredie, Jay R. Gavvala, Marcus Ng, Tadeu A. Fantaneanu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity Health NetworkCARE CanadaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Continuous EEG (cEEG) is the gold standard for diagnosing nonconvulsive seizures (NCSs) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in critically ill patients, with NCSE occurring in 8%-10% of patients with unexplained coma. Untreated NCSs are associated with secondary brain injury, as well as increased mortality and morbidity. cEEG monitoring allows clinicians to identify more than twice the number of seizures compared with a 30-min routine EEG recording. However, there are limited data on cEEG practices in Canadian hospitals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the availability, indications, and barriers to cEEG access in Canada. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was distributed to EEG laboratory directors and physicians who interpret cEEGs to assess cEEG monitoring practices in Canadian adult hospitals. The survey evaluated institutional cEEG availability, clinical applications, and technical infrastructure. Results: Among 1,267 adult hospitals in Canada, only 92 hospital networks (9%) were identified as having an EEG laboratory. Twenty-four were identified as potentially offering cEEG monitoring, and a survey was sent to a physician at these institutions. Responses were received from 22 institutions (92% response rate), with 19 hospital networks reporting cEEG availability-representing just 2% of Canadian hospitals. Geographic disparities were significant, with 3 provinces and all 3 territories lacking cEEG access. Among tertiary care hospitals, only 68% reported cEEG availability. Barriers included insufficient EEG technologist coverage and prolonged processing periods for 24-hour EEG recordings. Most institutions lacked standardized guidelines, were unable to perform new cEEG hookups after regular work hours, and did not have access to abbreviated montages when cEEG was unavailable. Discussion: cEEG availability in Canada is highly limited, including at tertiary care centers, with significant geographic inequities and operational barriers. Most Canadian hospitals do not meet guideline standards for cEEG use. These findings highlight the need for systemic changes to improve cEEG access and align Canadian cEEG practices with international standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Clinical PracticeSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207