A Systematic Review of Self-Concept in Adolescents With Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To critically assess the research quality of studies examining self-concept in adolescents with epilepsy (AWE) and, based on the evidence of these studies, to determine whether AWE have compromised self-concept, to identify correlates of self-concept, and to evaluate interventions aimed at improving self-concept. METHOD: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant publications. The modified Quality Index was used to evaluate study quality. RESULTS: 20 studies were reviewed and 8 studies were included in a meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in self-concept between AWE versus healthy control subjects. Self-concept was associated with a number of sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral variables. CONCLUSION: The limited number and modest quality of the studies available for review suggest that the negative findings should be interpreted with caution. In addition to addressing the limitations of existing studies, future research should focus on exploring the potential role of self-concept in the development of mental health problems in AWE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".