Patient‐reported outcome of pediatric epilepsy surgery: Social inclusion or exclusion as young adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the social relationships and participation in educational, vocational, and community life in young adults who had undergone epilepsy surgery during childhood or adolescence. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, case-controlled, and multisite design study. Findings were compared between young adults who had undergone epilepsy surgery and were seizure-free in the previous 12 months (n = 38), those who had undergone epilepsy surgery and were not seizure-free (n = 33), and a group of individuals with epilepsy who had not undergone surgery (n = 31). RESULTS: The surgical seizure-free group had significantly better general social well-being than the other two groups. Specifically, these participants were employed for more months over the past year, were less likely to report that epilepsy had affected their employment, and were more likely to belong to at least one community organization. However, these participants were not any more likely to be involved in a relationship than those in the other two groups. In addition, there were no group differences in the reported number of friends or the frequency of visits with friends, or in what participants described as their principal activity (i.e., student, employed or unemployed). DISCUSSION: There are a number of benefits to social functioning associated with having had epilepsy surgery and being seizure-free in the past year. Further research is recommended to increase our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the social and personal challenges that these individuals face.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".