The impact of family factors on IQ in pediatric medically refractory epilepsy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether family factors were associated with intellectual functioning among children with medically refractory epilepsy, and whether family factors moderate the relationship between patient/epilepsy-related variables and intellectual functioning. METHOD: Children aged 4 to 18 years with medically refractory epilepsy who were evaluated for surgical candidacy were recruited. The authors assessed the association of intellectual quotient (IQ) with patient, epilepsy, and family factors. Family factors included parental education, household income, and validated parent-report measures of family functioning, family mastery and social support, and family demands. RESULTS: Univariable analyses showed that higher IQ scores were associated with an older age of epilepsy onset (β = .260, p = .009), fewer antiepileptic drugs (β = .248, p = .013), a shorter duration (β = .384, p < .001) and percentage of life with epilepsy (β = .419, p < .001), unilobar epileptogenic foci relative to multilobar foci (β = .274, p = .006), and lower family demands (β = .211, p = .035). In multivariable analysis, unilobar epileptogenic foci (p = .010) and a shorter percentage of life with epilepsy (p = .001) remained significant predictors of IQ. Exploratory moderation analyses found the relationship between the extent of epileptogenic foci and IQ to be moderated by family demands (p = .004); specifically, patients with unilobar epileptogenic onset had similar IQ scores irrespective of family demands, whereas patients with multilobar foci had lower IQ scores with increasing family demands. CONCLUSION: Family factors did not have a large impact on IQ among children with medically refractory epilepsy, although the moderating effect of family demands deserves further study. Epilepsy-related factors in this patient group may weaken the link between child IQ and family factors. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".