MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116846252 · doi:10.1136/pn-2025-004859

Subhairline EEG in neurocritical care: use and limitations through illustrative cases

2025· article· en· W7116846252 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyNeurointensive careFalse positive paradoxStatus epilepticusEpilepsyMedical diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subhairline electroencephalography (EEG) is a limited-montage EEG with applications in epilepsy and neurocritical care. It has potential advantages in resource-limited settings and may help in the early diagnosis and management of seizures and status epilepticus while providing real-time electrophysiological monitoring. It has several important technical limitations such as reduced spatial coverage, low sampling rate, inadequate bit depth and review software with limited features. Clinicians must carefully consider these limitations for proper interpretation and so avoid diagnoses based on false positives or false negatives. We present six cases using subhairline EEG and their corresponding 10-20 EEG recordings to help in pattern recognition and to highlight the usefulness and limitations of this technique.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.290 · 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