What is the weight of medications changes along treatment with vagal nerve stimulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) therapy has been widely recognized as an alternative for the treatment of drug resistant epilepsy (DRE), although modification of AEDs during VNS treatment could explain improvement in patients. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of VNS in 30 adult epileptic patients treated with > 6 months follow-up. The criteria for implantation were the following: a) not candidate for resective epilepsy surgery, b) DRE, c) impairment of quality of life, d) no other option of treatment. We assessed socio-demographics, seizure etiology, seizure classification and AEDs used during treatment with VNS. We assessed adverse effects and efficacy. Responder rate was defined as >50 seizure improvement from baseline, Thirty patients (females-18, males-12; age 35.1+13.3) were included. After 6 months, 12 months, 24 months and 36 months, the response rate was as follows: 13/30(43%), 13/27 (48%), 9/22(41%) and 16/8 (50%), none of them were seizure free. Changes of AEDs were done in 57% of patients at 6 months, 43% at 12, 43% at 24, 43% at 24 months. Other outcomes will be discussed. Our study shows that VNS is an effective therapy although significant changes in medications were done along the therapy, therefore the real effect of VNS could be controversial
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".