Social outcomes after temporal or extratemporal epilepsy surgery: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to assess social outcomes after epilepsy surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted as part of a larger project on the development of an appropriateness and necessity rating tool to identify patients with focal epilepsy that may benefit from an epilepsy surgery evaluation. Studies were included if they reported postsurgical data on social outcomes (employment, driving, social relationships, marriage, education, financial status, behavior, and social interactions) and had a follow-up period of at least 24 months. Our search strategy yielded 5,061 studies. Sixty-five of these studies addressed social outcomes, but only 19 met all eligibility criteria. KEY FINDINGS: In adults, a significant improvement in full-time employment postsurgery was documented. The ability to drive was significantly increased after surgery and was dependent on seizure freedom. Patients generally perceived improved relationships, independence, and overall lifestyle postsurgery. Marital status generally remained unchanged when compared to controls, education improved modestly, and income/financial status changes depended on how it was assessed (e.g., income level vs. receipt of disability pension). In children, a study examining behavior showed improved social interactions in those who underwent surgery compared to controls. The results for other social outcome categories were more variable. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, the majority of studies reported improvement in social outcomes after surgery. However, prospective controlled observational studies using objective social outcome measures are necessary prior to making specific conclusions about the influence of surgery on social outcomes other than employment or driving status in all age groups, but particularly in children and the elderly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".