Neuropsychological Outcome After Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Surgery in Patients With Postoperative Seizures following Unsuccessful Surgical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: About 20-30% of patients with intractable partial epilepsy have less than favorable outcome after temporal lobectomy. This study explored the neuropsychological outcome of such surgery in this group of patients. Methods: The Medical records of patients with intractable temporal lobe epilepsy who underwent temporal lobectomy were reviewed. All patients had detailed phase I presurgical evaluation and subsequently had surgery. Detailed neuropsychology assessment was carried out in all patients pre-operatively as well as between 3 and 12 months following surgery, 13 patients with Engel class 3 outcome were included in the study. Results: There was no significant difference in the pre and post surgical IQ, verbal and visual-spatial memory performance. However, 76.9% of the patients improved in attention/executive function, 62.6% improved in language function and 88.6% improved in psycho-emotional function. Conclusions: Despite suboptimal epilepsy surgery outcome, this study demonstrates that attention /executive function, language, and psycho-emotional function improved substantially in this sample of patients. J Neurol Res. 2012;2(5):198-203 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jnr149w
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".