A longitudinal cohort study of mediators of health‐related quality of life after pediatric epilepsy surgery or medical treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this longitudinal cohort study was to examine the variables that influence health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after epilepsy surgery in children. We examined whether treatment type (surgical vs medical therapy) and seizure control are related to other variables that have been shown to influence HRQOL, namely depressive symptoms in children with epilepsy or their parents, and the availability of family resources. METHODS: In total, 265 children with drug-resistant epilepsy were recruited from eight epilepsy centers across Canada at the time of their evaluation for candidacy for epilepsy surgery and were assessed at baseline, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up. Parents completed the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire (QOLCE-55) and measures of family resources and depression; children completed depression inventories. Causal mediation analyses using natural effect models were used to evaluate the extent to which the relationship between treatment and HRQOL was explained by seizure control, child and parent depressive symptoms, and family resources. RESULTS: Overall, 111 children underwent surgery and 154 were treated with medical therapy only. The HRQOL scores of surgical patients were 3.4 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.2, 7.0) relative to medical patients at the 2-year follow-up after adjusting for baseline covariates, with 66% of the effect of surgery attributed to seizure control. Child or parent depressive symptoms and family resources had negligible mediation effects between treatment and HRQOL. The effect of seizure control on HRQOL was not mediated by child or parent depressive symptoms, or by family resources. SIGNIFICANCE: The findings demonstrate that seizure control is on the causal pathway between epilepsy surgery and improved HRQOL in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. However, child and parent depressive symptoms and family resources were not significant mediators. The results highlight the importance of achieving seizure control to improve HRQOL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".