The clinical study about levetiracetam on cognitive function and emotional influence in the patients with partial epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the clinical influence about levetiracetam on cognitive function and emotional influence in the patients with partial epilepsy.Methods A total of 62 patients with partial epilepsy were divided into carbamazepine group (30 cases) and levetiracetam group (32 cases) by random digits table method,carbamazepine group was treated by carbamazepine while levetiracetam group was treated by levetiracetam.The patients were assessed before treatment and 4,8,12,16 weeks after treatment by the Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA),self rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self rating depression scale (SDS).Results There was no significant difference in MoCA score between two groups before treatment and 4 weeks after treatment (P ＞ 0.05).MoCA score at 8,12,16 weeks after treatment in levetiracetam group was better than that in carbamazepine group [(22.6 ± 2.1) scores vs.(20.8 ± 2.6) scores,(23.5±2.7) scoresvs.(21.3± 2.8) scores,(24.6±4.7) scoresvs.(21.2±3.0) scores],the difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05).There was no significant difference between SAS score,SDS score between two groups before and after treatment (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion In the process of treating the patients with partial epilepsy by drug,levetiracetam is superior to carbamazepine on the improvement of cognitive function,but the mood improvement is not obvious. Key words: Levetiracetam; Carbamazepine; Epilepsy; Cognitive function; Emotions
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 | 0.001 | 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".