MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3009117605 · doi:10.21608/amj.2020.67544

COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT IN A SAMPLE OF EGYPTIAN PATIENTS WITH GENERALIZED ONSET EPILEPSY

2020· article· en· W3009117605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. E. Ismail, Hassan Kawashty Gad, Mohamed Hamed Rashad

Bibliographic record

VenueAl-Azhar Medical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyCognitionOutpatient clinicNeurologyMedicineGeneralized epilepsyPediatricsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentIdiopathic generalized epilepsyWisconsin Card Sorting TestNeurological examinationCognitive testPsychiatryPsychologyCognitive impairmentNeuropsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cognitive brain functions constitute the ability to work with information in a meaningful way, apply gained information, perform preferential changes, and someone ability to change opinions about that information. Individuals with epilepsy have a higher prevalence of impaired cognitive performance compared to healthy individuals who are matched for age and education. Numerous factors can have a deleterious impact on cognition in patients, including age at onset of epilepsy, seizure frequency, duration of seizures, structural cerebral damage as a consequence of repetitive or prolonged seizures and medications used for treating seizures. Objective: Assessing the cognitive functions in patients with generalized onset epilepsy. Patients and Methods: Our study was conducted, in the neurology department of Sohag general hospital upon 75 individuals divided into 3 equal groups presented with epilepsy selected from the inpatient and outpatient clinics. Patients were divided into three groups: I. Group A: patients diagnosed with generalized onset epilepsy with medication (anti-epileptic drugs). II. Group B: patients diagnosed with generalized onset epilepsy without medication (anti-epileptic drugs). III. Group C: healthy subjects will be included in the study as the control group. All of the participants were be subjected to the following: *Full history (demographic data and personal history, detailed history of general health condition and chronic or current diseases) and general and neurological examination *Special tests including: PEBL Wisconsin (Berg) Card Sort test, PEBL The Conners’ continuous performance test, Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCa) *Brain imaging: MRI brain (to exclude organic cause). *EEG. Results: The mean Correct Responses Wisconison card sorting test of study groups was around 76.7±5.65 in group 1, around 78±2.88 in group 2 and 81.8±2.38 in group 3; with significant difference between group 1 and group 3 and significant difference between group 2 and group 3. The mean Target Acc Rate continuous performance test was around 0.956±0.03 in group 1, around 0.970±0.015 in group 2 and 0.974±0.015 in group 3; with significant difference between group 1 and group 2 and significant difference between group 1 and group 3. The mean MoCa of study groups was around 24.1 in epileptic with medication group, 23.96 in epileptic without medication group and 25 in control group with no significant difference between all groups. With high significant difference between Group 1 versus Group 3, and Group 2 versus Group 3. The normal MoCa was around 3 in epileptic with medication group, 2 in epileptic without medication group and 22 in control group with high significant difference between all groups. Conclusion: All patients with epilepsy reported significant impairment in all cognitive measures such as working memory, inhibitory control, goal maintenance, and mental flexibility. We observed attentional deficits in processes such as alertness and attention span and those requiring sustained and divided attention compared with controls. Attentional and executive impairment was correlated with higher frequency of seizures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAl-Azhar Medical Journal→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→