MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quality of life in young adults who underwent resective surgery for epilepsy in childhood

2012· article· en· W1576628902 on OpenAlexaff
Irene Elliott, Darren S. Kadis, Lucyna Lach, Janet Olds, Lynn McCleary, Sharon Whiting, Thomas Snyder, Mary Lou Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonBrock UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodWorryEpilepsyQuality of life (healthcare)Epilepsy surgeryYoung adultPsychologyPediatricsCognitionMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyAnxietyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study investigated quality of life (QOL) in young adults who had undergone epilepsy surgery before the age of 16 years. The contribution to QOL of seizure status in the prior year, sex, number of antiepileptic drugs, and mood were evaluated. METHODS: Sixty-nine young adults who had undergone surgery were subdivided into those who were seizure-free in the past year (n = 38) and those who had seizures (n = 31) in that time. A nonsurgical comparison group of young adults (n = 29) with childhood-onset medically intractable epilepsy was also studied. All groups completed measures of QOL and mood. KEY FINDINGS: After accounting for mood, sex, and number of antiepileptic drugs, the seizure-free group reported better cognitive and physical function and overall QOL, experienced less seizure worry, and had better self-perception. Mood was the most consistently predictive covariate, and was independently predictive of many aspects of QOL. SIGNIFICANCE: Seizure freedom associated with surgery in childhood is associated with improved QOL in certain domains. Findings highlight the importance of mood in determining self-perception of QOL.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207