Cognitive Skills in Children with Intractable Epilepsy: Comparison of Surgical and Nonsurgical Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare neuropsychological performance of two groups of children with intractable epilepsy: those who are surgical candidates, and those who are not. METHODS: Intelligence, verbal memory, visual memory, academic skills, and sustained attention were measured in children aged 6-18 years. The effects of number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), seizure frequency, age at seizure onset, and duration of seizure disorder were examined. RESULTS: Both groups had high rates of impairment. Group differences were found only on the verbal memory task. Children who experienced seizures in clusters had higher IQ, reading comprehension, and arithmetic scores. Age at seizure onset and proportion of life with seizures were related to IQ. Performance did not vary with AED monotherapy versus polytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Few differences exist in cognitive performance between children with intractable seizures who are and those who are not surgical candidates. These findings suggest that children who are not surgical candidates can serve as good controls in studies on cognitive outcome of surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".