Self‐reported quality of life in pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy: correlation with clinical variables and memory evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This work explores the effects of clinical variables on self-reported quality of life (QoL) in pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), correlating this information with results from the Quality of Life in Epilepsy questionnaire (QOLIE-31) and selective memory tests of the Barcelona Battery and the Rey-Osterrieth figure. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the records of 60 TLE patients and correlated patient variables (e.g. gender, aetiology; mesial TLE with hippocampal sclerosis [HS] versus lesional TLE, side of ictal onset, age, age at onset, duration of epilepsy, seizure frequency, and use of AEDs) with selective memory test scores and self-reported QoL. RESULTS: Right ictal onset was associated with lower emotional well-being scores. MTLE-HS patients had lower QOLIE-31 scores for seizure worry, social function, overall QoL, energy/fatigue, cognitive function, and obtained a lower overall score, compared to those with lesional TLE. Older age at epilepsy onset was associated with worse emotional well-being, energy/fatigue, medication effects, and seizure worry outcomes. Higher seizure frequency and older age at time of evaluation were associated with lower cognitive function scores. Generalised seizures were associated with lower scores based on the variables: seizure worry, overall quality of life, emotional well-being, and cognitive function. Regarding memory tests, only visuospatial memory correlated positively with cognitive function score. Patients with MTLE-HS underwent evaluation for pharmacoresistant epilepsy, on average, 10 years later than those with lesional TLE. CONCLUSIONS: MTLE-HS, right-sided epileptogenic zone, late onset, and higher seizure frequency were associated with worse QoL. Objective testing revealed specific memory deficits that were not reflected in self-reported QoL scores.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".