MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117378831 · doi:10.1093/brain/awh449

Long-term seizure outcomes following epilepsy surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2005· review· en· W2117378831 on OpenAlexaff
José Francisco Téllez‐Zenteno, Rajat Dhar, Samuel Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsy surgeryEpilepsyMedicineMeta-analysisHemispherectomyMEDLINERandomized controlled trialSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of long-term outcomes is essential in brain surgery for epilepsy, which is an irreversible intervention for a chronic condition. Excellent short-term results of resective epilepsy surgery have been established, but less is known about long-term outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on this topic. To provide evidence-based estimates of long-term results of various types of epilepsy surgery and to identify sources of variation in results of published studies, we searched Medline, Index Medicus, the Cochrane database, bibliographies of reviews, original articles and book chapters to identify articles published since 1991 that contained > or =20 patients of any age, undergoing resective or non-resective epilepsy surgery, and followed for a mean/median of > or =5 years. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data, resolving disagreements through discussion. Seventy-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria, of which 71 reported on resective surgery (93%) and five (7%) on non-resective surgery. There were no randomized trials and only six studies had a control group. Some articles contributed more than one study, yielding 83 studies of which 78 dealt with resective surgery and five with non-resective surgery. Forty studies (51%) of resective surgery referred to temporal lobe surgery, 25 (32%) to grouped temporal and extratemporal surgery, seven (9%) to frontal surgery, two (3%) to grouped extratemporal surgery, two (3%) to hemispherectomy, and one (1%) each to parietal and occipital surgery. In the non-resective category, three studies reported outcomes after callosotomy and two after multiple subpial transections. The median proportion of long-term seizure-free patients was 66% with temporal lobe resections, 46% with occipital and parietal resections, and 27% with frontal lobe resections. In the long term, only 35% of patients with callosotomy were free of most disabling seizures, and 16% with multiple subpial transections remained free of all seizures. The year of operation, duration of follow-up and outcome classification system were most strongly associated with outcomes. Almost all long-term outcome studies describe patient cohorts without controls. Although there is substantial variation in outcome definition and methodology among the studies, consistent patterns of results emerge for various surgical interventions after adjusting for sources of heterogeneity. The long-term (> or =5 years) seizure free rate following temporal lobe resective surgery was similar to that reported in short-term controlled studies. On the other hand, long-term seizure freedom was consistently lower after extratemporal surgery and palliative procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.046
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,078
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207