Quality of Life and Memory after Vagus Nerve Stimulator Implantation for Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This prospective, case control study evaluates quality of life (QOL), depressive affect, and memory outcomes of epilepsy patients implanted with a vagus nerve stimulator (VNS). METHODS: Three groups of patients with epilepsy underwent assessment on two occasions: 1) patients with a VNS were tested before and 12 months after implantation (n = 16); 2) patients who underwent cerebral resective surgery were tested pre- and post-operatively (n = 10); and 3) patients under medical management (n = 9). Group means were compared on the QOLIE-89, Geriatric Depression Scale, Wechsler Memory Scale - III, and the Memory Observation Questionnaire. Secondary analyses calculated the reliable change index, providing information on change beyond measurement error and chance. RESULTS: Mean ratings of QOL, depression, and memory complaints and objective memory scores remained stable or improved in all the groups. The QOL improved more after cerebral resective surgery than VNS or medication controls, but the VNS and medication control groups did not differ. In the VNS group, QOL was not related to seizure reduction. The percentage of cases showing real change in memory was equivalent across groups, except in one of eight indices (i.e., verbal recognition memory). CONCLUSIONS: This first case controlled design found that vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive therapy for seizure control did not change QOL, depressive affect, or objective memory scores over one-year more so than medical management alone. We point out the need for larger case control, non-industry funded investigations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".