[Executive dysfunction in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and its correlation with P300].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the changes of executive function in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and analyze its correlation with P300 event-related potentials. METHODS: Fifty patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and 30 age, gender and education-matched healthy control subjects were assessed by neuropsychological tests, including Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), working memory, verbal fluency, trail making, digit span, digit symbol and Stroop color-word interference to detect P300 event-related potentials. RESULTS: In temporal lobe epilepsy group, the scores in MoCA, verbal and non-verbal working memory, verbal fluency, digit span, digit symbol and Stroop test were lower than those of the normal control group. And trail making tests A and B became prolonged (P < 0.05). Comparing with normal control group, temporal lobe epilepsy patients had prolonged latency [(332 ± 33)ms] and decreased P300 amplitude [(10 ± 8)µV] (P < 0.05). Comparing epileptogenic focus group on the left and right sides, there was statistically significant difference in verbal working memory (P < 0.05). There was a negative correlation of P300 latency and MoCA, non-verbal working memory, digit span and digit symbol test scores (r = -0.29--0.45, P < 0.05). And a positive correlation of P300 amplitude and MoCA, non-verbal working memory, digit symbol conversion and Stroop scores was also found (r = 0.37-0.47, P < 0.05). P300 amplitude was more relevant to overall cognitive level and executive functions. CONCLUSION: Temporal lobe is involved in the regulation of executive functions. Besides a wide range of cognitive impairment, temporal lobe epilepsy patients have a number of executive dysfunctions, including working memory, cognitive flexibility, attention and inhibitory control ability. And an impairment of verbal working memory is evident in left-sided lesion. Their manifestations include decreased latency and amplitude of P300 on executive function tests. Therefore these two objective parameters may be employed to evaluate the cognitive impairment in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".