P.011 Is the effect of the vagus nerve stimulation different in lesional and nonlesional medically resistant epilepsies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) is around 30% patients with epilepsy. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is offered to patients who are not candidates for epilepsy resective surgery, however the results of lesional cases has not been explored previously Methods: The study was a retrospective cohort study that involved patients with DRE implanted with VNS at the Epilepsy program at Western University, Ontario. We classified our VNS cohort based on brain imaging of lesional (L) and nonlesional (NL) epilepsy. Results: The median age was 31.8 years, 70.69% were females. The VNS-L group average age was 31.8 years and the NL 35.2 years. The most common abnormality was nodular heterotropias 31.34% (n=9). 16 patients underwent palliative procedures before the VNS implantation, 12 in VNS-L and 4 in VNS-NL. The median period of follow-up was 69.97 months. 62% of the VNS-L group had a seizure reduction of 50% or greater, compared to 41.38% in the VNS-NL group. Seizure freedom was 10.34% in VNS-L, compared to 6.99% in VNS-NL. Conclusions: This is the first study reporting the outcome of VNS in lesional cases. Our results suggest that VNS in lesional cases is effective. However, a large multicenteric study is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".