Outcomes following surgical interventions for hypothalamic hamartomas: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypothalamic hamartomas (HHs) are deep-seated congenital lesions that typically lead to pharmacoresistant epilepsy and a catastrophic encephalopathic syndrome characterised by severe neuropsychological impairment and decline in quality of life. A variety of surgical approaches and technologies are available for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy. There remains, however, a paucity of literature directly comparing their relative efficacy and safety. This protocol aims to facilitate a systematic review and meta-analysis that will characterise and compare the probability of seizure freedom and relevant postoperative complications across different surgical techniques performed for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Individual Participant Data guidelines. Three major databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus, will be systematically searched from database inception and without language restrictions for relevant articles using our predefined search strategy. Title-abstract and full text screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria created a priori will be performed by two independent reviewers to identify eligible articles. Conflicts will be resolved via discussion with a third team member. Following data extraction of both study-level and individual patient data (IPD), a study-level and IPD meta-analysis will be performed. Study-level analysis will focus on assessing the degree of heterogeneity in the data and quantifying overall seizure outcomes for each surgical technique. The IPD analysis will use multivariable regression to determine perioperative predictors of seizure freedom and complications that can guide patient and technique selection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work will not require ethics approval as it will be solely based on previously published and available data. The results of this review will be shared via conference presentation and submission to peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022378876.
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 | 0.048 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.004 |
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".