MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392885458 · doi:10.5812/ans-143860

Effective Factors in Cognitive Functions of Patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

2024· article· en· W4392885458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amina Tani, Nawal Adali

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyTemporal lobeCognitionMedicinePsychologyAudiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is the most common form of focal epilepsy and increases the risk of cognitive impairment, negatively impacting the quality of life of affected individuals. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate cognitive function in patients with low socioeconomic status affected by TLE and identify factors influencing such function. Methods: This case-control study, conducted between July 2021 and August 2022, compared the cognitive function of 40 patients affected by TLE to 92 healthy controls. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) was used for neurocognitive evaluation. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 for Windows. Results: The mean age of the patient group was 33.35 years, compared to 35.37 years in the control group. Moreover, 70% of patients affected by TLE displayed cognitive impairment and demonstrated lower performance in cognitive functions than the control group (P < 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between overall MoCA scores and several factors, including seizure frequency, educational level, polytherapy, disease duration, and self-esteem scores (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that seizure control and higher educational level were statistically significant predictors of overall MoCA scores in patients affected by TLE. Conclusions: In low-income patients affected by TLE, seizure control and a higher educational level emerged as predictors of cognitive performance. These findings underscore the importance of identifying and managing comorbidities and the need for tailored cognitive rehabilitation programs for this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeuroscienceSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207