Effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: Current state of knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is a well-researched therapeutic option for a variety of neurocognitive problems. Recently, CR has been proposed as an option for patients who experience cognitive difficulties following epilepsy surgery (ES). However, there is inconsistency in reporting the efficacy of CR in this population. We appraise existing evidence regarding CR approaches in patients undergoing resective ES and review effectiveness of specific CR strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EBM Reviews (including the Cochrane database) identified studies in English published before September 2014, without age restriction, related to CR in patients who underwent resective ES. We included studies focused on patients who underwent ES and who received at least one type of cognitive rehabilitation. RESULTS: Of 2,059 citations identified, four fulfilled eligibility criteria (n = 577), and all investigated the effectiveness of specific CR strategies in patients with either left or right temporal lobe resections. CR strategies used included internal compensatory strategies, external memory aids, psychoeducation, verbal and visual memory training, and exercises of attention and executive functions. None were randomized trials, and only one study involved standardized methods or described the procedures in detail. Evidence suggests that CR may contribute to improvements in aspects of verbal memory, with particular benefit of visual imagery techniques; CR aimed at verbal memory functions may be less effective for patients with hemispheric-dominant resections, and figural memory may not be improved by CR. Furthermore, CR may improve functional and life outcomes, but its timing does not appear to influence its effectiveness. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that CR interventions are overwhelmingly under researched or underreported, and there is a need for a systematic evaluation of CR in this patient population. CR should be given greater attention after ES to determine its efficacy and role in the management of these patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".