Executive functioning in children with self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (ECTS) is one of the most frequent focal epilepsies amongst children. Because remission usually occurs before 16 years old and patients present infrequent clinical manifestation, ECTS was considered benign for a long time. Despite the reports on cognitive deficits associated with ECTS in the last years, knowledge about the condition’s specific executive function domains (inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency, and higher-order executive functions) is still lacking. The following systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed and Scopus databases and gray literature were searched according to the following eligibility criteria: (1) original articles published in peer-review journals; (2) studies that present assessment of children with ECTS; and (3) studies with an available assessment of the executive function of the participants. A total of 43 studies (1179 patients and 1086 healthy controls) met the inclusion criteria. Data from 19 studies were extracted, and meta-analysis methods were used to compare results in the three main executive function domains and verbal fluency. The study quality was measured through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the evidence quality with the GRADEpro tool. Results and conclusions: The present systematic review is the first to gather information about executive functioning in children with ECTS. According to the meta-analyses, children with ECTS show weaker performances when compared with a control group in inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and verbal fluency. However, because the quality of evidence was classified as very low, caution is needed when interpreting the strength of the results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".