Psychosocial outcome after extratemporal epilepsy surgery: a prospective clinical study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to examine the short- and long-term psychosocial outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent extratemporal lobe resection due to medically-refractory epilepsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 23 consecutive patients and all patients completed a questionnaire assessing especially psychosocial outcome 6 months and 2 years after surgery. Results obtained at short- and long-term follow-ups were compared to baseline. Furthermore, the impact of seizure freedom on the psychosocial outcome was sought. RESULTS: The results suggested that, psychosocial outcome was improved after surgery compared to preoperative status regardless of seizure status. At long-term follow-up, significant improvements were found in social and psychological variables (p < 0.05). Levels of side effects from medication were high at long-term compared to baseline (p = 0.003). Seizure free patients showed better psychosocial outcome than those who had seizure during the postoperative period, however; only the "impact of epilepsy" scale showed significant improvement at 6 months after surgery (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These results provide evidence that surgery caused appreciable improvements in psychosocial well-being, however; seizure freedom is not key to improving the psychosocial life of patients who have undergone extratemporal lobe epilepsy surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".