Percepciones y actitudes de los pacientes frente a la cirugía de la epilepsia: conceptos equivocados en Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Selected patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy benefit from epilepsy surgery, however significant delays remain. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge and attitudes toward epilepsy surgery among patients with epilepsy and identify barriers that might delay the treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 10-minute questionnaire was administered to patients with epilepsy in Colombia. Survey assessed the following: knowledge of surgical options, perceptions about the risks of surgery vs. ongoing seizures, disease disability, treatment goals, and demographic and socioeconomic variables. RESULTS: We recruited 88 patients with focal epilepsy. More than half of patients (56%) were not aware that surgery might be an option. Apprehension about epilepsy surgery was evident, 60% of patients perceived epilepsy surgery to be very or moderately dangerous. A large proportion of patients believe death (41%), stroke (47%), vision loss (56%), personality change (56%), paralysis (62%), difficulties in speaking (69%), and memory loss (60%) were frequent side effects. The majority of patients (62%) consider the surgical procedure as the last option of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a negative attitude toward epilepsy surgery based on the patients' misperceptions of suffering neurological deficits during the surgery, reflecting lack of knowledge toward this type of treatment. These perceptions can contribute to delays in surgical care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".