Navigating Social Waters: Understanding Theory-of-Mind Challenges in Patients with Mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Temporal lobe epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects many areas of patients’ lives, including social competence. The aim of the study was to assess theory of mind in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and to investigate the demographic and clinical factors associated with this function. Methods: A total of 65 participants took part in the study, which included 44 patients with epilepsy and 21 demographically matched healthy individuals. The following neuropsychological tests were used to examine theory of mind: the Faux Pas Test, the Hinting Task, the Emotion Comprehension Test, and a cognitive function screen, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Results: Patients with epilepsy scored lower on all measures of the theory-of-mind tests. Moreover, in the clinical group, numerous moderate and strong correlations were found between the theory-of-mind tests and education, age at onset of epilepsy, lateralization of epileptic focus, cognitive status, and, to a lesser degree, number of anti-epileptic drugs, frequency of seizures, and age. In contrast, in the control group, significant correlations were found mostly between the theory-of-mind tests and sex, and, to a lesser degree, age. Education and cognitive functioning were not associated. Conclusions: Patients with epilepsy experience difficulties in theory of mind, which may have a negative impact on the quality of their social relationships. The level of theory-of-mind abilities correlates with particular clinical and demographic indicators. Recognizing these issues allows clinicians to implement tailored interventions, potentially improving patients’ quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".