Quality of Life after Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Intractable Epilepsy: Is Seizure Control the Only Contributing Factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the impact of vagus nerve stimulation on a cohort of patients with intractable epilepsy. A 1-year prospective trial of vagus nerve stimulation for intractable epilepsy was done in 26 patients. Seizure frequency, anti-epileptic drugs, and quality of life were assessed using QOLIE-89, ELDQOL, and a Likert scale of impact of treatment. Seizures were reduced by more than 50% in 19% of the patients, by less than 50% in 46%, and were unchanged in 35% of them. Antiepileptic drugs were reduced in 43% of the patients. There was a significant improvement in the mean overall QOLIE-89 score and other measures of quality of life, but these did not correlate with changes in seizure frequency. Subjective improvement occurred in 84% of the patients. The quality of life improves in some patients following vagus nerve stimulation for intractable epilepsy. The favorable effects of this treatment may be attributable to additional factors besides seizure control which in this study was modest.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".