MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020216633 · doi:10.1111/epi.12611

The long‐term effect of vagus nerve stimulation on quality of life in patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy: The PuLsE (Open Prospective Randomized Long‐term Effectiveness) trial

2014· article· en· W2020216633 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Ryvlin, Frank Gilliam, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Gabriella Colicchio, Alfonso Iudice, Paolo Tinuper, Nelia Zamponi, Umberto Aguglia, Louis Wagner, Lorella Minotti, Hermann Stefan, Paul Boon, Mark Sadler, Paolo Benna, Pradheep Raman, Emilio Perucca

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersUCB PharmaNational Institutes of HealthCilagHospices Civils de LyonCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueEisaiGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsVagus nerve stimulationQuality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectEpilepsyMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointProspective cohort studyRepeated measures designDepression (economics)Physical therapyPsychologyInternal medicineVagus nerveStimulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as adjunct to best medical practice (VNS + BMP) is superior to BMP alone in improving long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: PuLsE (Open Prospective Randomized Long-term Effectiveness) was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, and long-term effectiveness study (conducted at 28 sites in Europe and Canada). Adults with pharmacoresistant focal seizures (n = 112) received VNS + BMP or BMP (1:1 ratio). Medications and VNS parameters could be adjusted as clinically indicated for optimal seizure control while minimizing adverse effects. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline HRQoL (using Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-89 total score; QOLIE-89). Secondary endpoints included changes in seizure frequency, responder rate (≥50% decrease in seizure frequency), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D), Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy scale (NDDI-E), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), Adverse Event Profile (AEP), and antiepileptic drug (AED) load. The study was prematurely terminated due to recruitment difficulties prior to completing the planned enrollment of n = 362. Results for n = 96 who had baseline and at least one follow-up QOLIE-89 assessment (from months 3-12) were included in this analysis. Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance was performed on change from baseline for the primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences in favor of VNS + BMP were observed regarding improvement in HRQoL, seizure frequency, and CGI-I score (respective p-values < 0.05, 0.03, and 0.01). More patients in the VNS + BMP group (43%) reported adverse events (AEs) versus BMP group (21%) (p = 0.01), a difference reflecting primarily mostly transient AEs related to VNS implantation or stimulation. No significant difference between treatment groups was observed for changes in CES-D, NDDI-E, AEP, and AED load. SIGNIFICANCE: VNS therapy as a treatment adjunct to BMP in patients with pharmacoresistant focal seizures was associated with a significant improvement in HRQoL compared with BMP alone. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations192
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207