MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414790396 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000214229

Teaching Video NeuroImage: Clinical and EEG Hallmarks of Epilepsy With Eyelid Myoclonia

2025· article· en· W4414790396 on OpenAlexaff
Raid Hommady, Hiroshi Otsubo, Suvasini Sharma, Puneet Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyEpilepsyEyelidElectrodiagnosisStereoelectroencephalographyVideo recordingPhotic Stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 14-year-old developmentally typical boy presented with daily eyelid myoclonia (EEM) with absences since age 3 years.He had a single generalized tonic-clonic seizure at age 12 years because of nonadherence to antiseizure medications.He had failed valproate, ethosuximide, and lamotrigine.Neurologic examination and brain MRI were normal.The clinical and EEG features (Figure and Video 1) were suggestive of epilepsy with EEM or Jeavons syndrome.EEM 1 is an uncommon epilepsy syndrome, more common in girls (2:1), with seizure onset between age 2 and 14 years.It is characterized by eye closure (EC)-induced EEM, infrequent GTCs, and often drug resistance.Developmental milestones are usually normal with possible mild impairments.EEG shows 3-6 Hz irregular generalized spike or polyspike waves, EC sensitivity, and photo-paroxysmal responses.EC-induced spiky posterior α-like activity and occipital spikes preceding generalized discharges may suggest occipital lobe dysfunction and entrainment of thalamo-cortical networks. 2Monogenic aetiologies (e.g., CHD2, NEXMIF, SYNGAP1) have been reported in some EEM cases with neurologic comorbidities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.331 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→