MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466721488 · doi:10.1017/s1092852900008488

Effectiveness and Safety of Epilepsy Surgery: What is the Evidence?

2004· review· en· W2466721488 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialEpilepsyMedicineEpilepsy surgeryNeurologyMedical therapyPsychological interventionMesial temporal lobe epilepsyTemporal lobeQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence from a recent randomized controlled trial of surgical versus medical therapy of temporal lobe epilepsy proves that antero-mesial resection is safe and more effective than medical therapy. The number of patients needed to treat for one patient to become free of disabling seizures is two, which is superior to most interventions in neurology. A meta-analysis of non-randomized trials gives almost identical results; about two-thirds of patients become seizure-free, compared with only 8% with medical therapy. The results are remarkably similar among studies from different parts of the world. Quality of life improves early after epilepsy surgery, the improvements are both statistically and clinically significant, and they are sustained. Surgical morbidity with clinically important permanent sequelae is 2%. Epilepsy surgery remains underutilized in developed countries and it does not exist in all but a few developing countries. Current randomized trials are underway to explore the effect of early surgery versus optimum medical therapy on the prevention of disability in patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, and to examine the effectiveness of novel interventions, such as minimally invasive surgery and brain stimulation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations45
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207