MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416371984 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200541

TÉCUM: A New Transition Program for Young People With Epilepsy

2025· article· en· W4416371984 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laury-Anne Blondeau, Rose‐Marie Drouin‐Engler, Line Beaudet, Melissa Côté, J. Timothy Damiani, Dominic Chartrand, Vanessa Léger, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Philippe Major, Mark R. Keezer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineLibrary of ParliamentUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyPsychosocialYoung adultTransition (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The transition from pediatric to adult health care for people with epilepsy is a critical period that requires careful planning to ensure optimal patient well-being. Adolescents with epilepsy face health-related and social challenges (e.g., psychiatric disorders, treatment nonadherence, family planning, and medico-legal issues). Recent Findings: The TÉCUM (Transition en Épilepsie Complexe de l'Université de Montréal) program aims to establish a sustainable model of transition care. Key initiatives include patient-oriented symposia (covering medical and social topics), a website that is a hub for available public and community resources, and a standardized online questionnaire to assess patient psychosocial well-being and transition readiness to tailor interventions. Implications for Practice: Our innovative program has established new educational initiatives for patients and their families and measures to ensure optimal management of their epilepsy as well as their psychosocial needs. We anticipate that the TÉCUM program will positively influence adolescents and young adults with epilepsy across Canada.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.400 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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