Remembrance and time passed: Memory outcomes 4–11 years after pediatric epilepsy surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the long-term cognitive outcomes following pediatric epilepsy surgery. Although the evidence for change within the first 2 years is not compelling, the plasticity of the immature brain may allow for improvements in the long term. This study examined memory function in a cohort of surgical and nonsurgical patients at baseline and 4-11 years after. METHOD: Participants were 88 patients (mean age 20.05, standard deviation [SD] 4.21 years) with childhood-onset intractable epilepsy; 53 had undergone resective epilepsy surgery. Verbal and visual memory were assessed at baseline and follow-up using standardized tests of recall of stories, faces, word pairs, and word lists. RESULTS: Improvements over time were not found; outcomes were largely independent of surgical status. Those who were seizure-free at follow-up had better story recall at both times (p = 0.028), and did not show improvement. Among patients with extratemporal lobe epilepsy, significant declines in word list recall were found over time irrespective of surgical or seizure status (p = 0.010). Effects of laterality of seizure focus were evident only when examining patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE); patients with left TLE had lower story recall scores compared to patients with right TLE at long-term follow-up (p = 0.043). SIGNIFICANCE: Patients who became seizure-free had some advantages in memory, but did not show improvements over time. These findings have important implications for understanding potential outcomes from surgery or continued use of antiepileptic medications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".