MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289932156 · doi:10.3171/2022.6.peds22160

Sensorimotor outcomes after resection for perirolandic drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4289932156 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan A. Shlobin, Andrew Wang, H. Westley Phillips, Han Yan, George M. Ibrahim, Lior M. Elkaim, Shuang Wang, Xiaoyan Liu, Lixin Cai, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Aria Fallah, Alexander G. Weil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecentral gyrusPostcentral gyrusEpilepsy surgeryMedicineEpilepsyMeta-analysisResectionAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologySomatosensory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of long-term postoperative sensorimotor deficits in children undergoing perirolandic resective epilepsy surgery is unclear. The risk of developing these deficits must be weighed against the potential reduction in seizure frequency after surgery. In this study, the authors investigated the prevalence of sensorimotor deficits after resective surgery at ≥ 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Subgroups of patients were identified and categorized according to their outcomes as follows: group A patients were denoted as seizure free with no postoperative sensorimotor deficits; group B patients experienced seizure recurrence with no deficit; group C patients were seizure free with deficits; and group D patients were not seizure free and with deficits. Rates of sensory deficits were examined in patients undergoing postcentral gyrus resection, and rates of motor deficits were aggregated in patients undergoing precentral gyrus resection. RESULTS: Of 797 articles resulting from the database searches, 6 articles including 164 pediatric patients at a mean age of 7.7 ± 5.2 years with resection for drug-resistant perirolandic epilepsy were included in the study. Seizure freedom was observed in 118 (72.9%) patients at a mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 1.8 years. In total, 109 (66.5%) patients did not develop sensorimotor deficits at last follow-up, while 55 (33.5%) had permanent deficits. Ten (14.3%) of 70 patients with postcentral gyrus resection had permanent sensory deficits. Of the postcentral gyrus resection patients, 41 (58.6%) patients were included in group A, 19 (27.1%) in group B, 7 (10.0%) in group C, and 3 (4.3%) in group D. Forty (37.7%) of 106 patients with precentral resections had permanent motor deficits. Of the precentral gyrus resection patients, 50 (47.2%) patients were in group A, 16 (15.1%) in group B, 24 (22.6%) in group C, and 16 (15.1%) in group D. Patients without focal cortical dysplasia were more likely to have permanent motor deficits relative to those with focal cortical dysplasia in the precentral surgery cohort (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In total, 58.6% of patients were seizure free without deficit, 27.1% were not seizure free and without deficit, 10.0% were seizure free but with deficit, and 4.3% were not seizure free and with deficit. Future studies with functional and quality-of-life data, particularly for patients who experience seizure recurrence with no deficits (as in group B in the present study) and those who are seizure free with deficits (as in group C) after treatment, are necessary to guide surgical decision-making.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.029
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207