A meta-analysis on progressive atrophy in intractable temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective:</h3> It remains unclear whether drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is associated with cumulative brain damage, with no expert consensus and no quantitative syntheses of the available evidence. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of MRI studies on progressive atrophy, searching PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE databases for cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative MRI studies on drug-resistant TLE. <h3>Results:</h3> We screened 2,976 records and assessed eligibility of 248 full-text articles. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for quantitative evaluation. We observed a predominance of cross-sectional studies, use of different clinical indices of progression, and high heterogeneity in age-control procedures. Meta-analysis of 18/1 cross-sectional/longitudinal studies on hippocampal atrophy (n = 979 patients) yielded a pooled effect size of <i>r</i> = −0.42 for ipsilateral atrophy related to epilepsy duration (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.51 to −0.32; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 65.22%) and <i>r</i> = −0.35 related to seizure frequency (95% CI −0.47 to −0.22; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 61.97%). Sensitivity analyses did not change the results. Narrative synthesis of 25/3 cross-sectional/longitudinal studies on whole brain atrophy (n = 1,504 patients) indicated that >80% of articles reported duration-related progression in extratemporal cortical and subcortical regions. Detailed analysis of study design features yielded low to moderate levels of evidence for progressive atrophy across studies, mainly due to dominance of cross-sectional over longitudinal investigations, use of diverse measures of seizure estimates, and absence of consistent age control procedures. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> While the neuroimaging literature is overall suggestive of progressive atrophy in drug-resistant TLE, published studies have employed rather weak designs to directly demonstrate it. Longitudinal multicohort studies are needed to unequivocally differentiate aging from disease progression.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".