Epilepsy surgery: an evidence summary.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Medical Advisory Secretariat, the predecessor of Health Quality Ontario, published an evidence-based analysis on functional brain imaging. This analysis highlighted the low uptake of epilepsy surgery in Ontario and internationally. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to review the effectiveness of epilepsy surgery at reducing seizure frequency, as well as the safety of epilepsy surgery. DATA SOURCES: The literature search included studies published between January 1995 and March 2012. Search terms included epilepsy, surgery, resection, safety, and complications. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included at least 20 patients undergoing surgery; had a comparison group of patients with epilepsy who were not undergoing surgery; and reported follow-up periods of at least 1 year. Outcomes of interest included seizure frequency and complications associated with surgery. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews reported pooled seizure-free rates that ranged from 43% to 75%. Two randomized controlled trials compared the effectiveness of epilepsy surgery with no surgery in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy. Both trials reported significant improvements in the seizure frequency in the surgery group compared with the nonsurgery group. Eight retrospective cohort studies reported on the safety of epilepsy surgery. Of the 2,725 patients included in these studies, there were 3 deaths reportedly related to surgery. Other complications included hemiparesis, infection, and visual field defects. The studies had long follow-up periods ranging from a mean of 2 to 7 years. LIMITATIONS: The most recent randomized controlled trial was stopped early due to slow enrolment rates. Thus results need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: There is high quality evidence that epilepsy surgery is effective at reducing seizure frequency. Two randomized controlled trials compared surgery to no surgery in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy. Both demonstrated significant reductions in seizure frequency. There are some complications associated with epilepsy surgery. In the published literature identified, we observed a 0.1% mortality rate associated with the surgery.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".