Nonlesional Frontal Lobe Epilepsy (FLE) of Childhood: Clinical Presentation, Response to Treatment and Comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Few studies have looked at long-term epileptic and cognitive outcome of frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) in children. Most are limited by inclusion of lesional and nonlesional patients. GOAL: To define the epileptic and functional outcome of children with nonlesional FLE. METHODS: We reviewed medical records and neuropsychological evaluations of patients with nonlesional FLE diagnosed between 1994 and 2004. We included children with either focal or regional frontal EEG and/or functional imaging abnormalities. We reviewed their charts for seizure and neuropsychological outcome. RESULTS: We included 21 children. Twelve (57.1%) presented with daily seizures. Seizures were nocturnal in 8 of 21, secondarily generalized in 6 of 21, adversive in 5 of 21, and focal motor in 6 of 21. Although, initial seizure control was poor in 14 of 21, long-term control was achieved in 10 of 21 after 14.6+/-22.3 months. Early development was normal in 12 of 21 but at later formal neuropsychological evaluation only 3 of 12 still had a normal profile. The majority of children had learning difficulties requiring special education prior to seizure onset (6 of 10). A clearly defined regression after seizure onset was observed in three children. The majority exhibited attention deficit and hyperactivity or impulsivity (14 of 21), behavioral problems (8 of 21), and cognitive impairments (10 of 21). Early seizure control was associated with a better cognitive outcome. CONCLUSION: Nonlesional FLE is associated with poor seizure and behavioral outcomes. Whether this is secondary to MRI-silent developmental lesions or to the progressive repercussion of seizures on frontal lobe functions remains uncertain. A prospective study with early neuropsychological assessment could help confirm the latter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".