MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408306689 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000213469

Epilepsy Risk Associated With the Receipt of General Anesthesia Relative to Neuraxial Anesthesia

2025· article· en· W4408306689 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Grace Couper, Tresah C. Antaya, Melody Lam, Philip M. Jones, Miguel Arango, Mauricio Giraldo, Jorge G. Burneo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaReceiptEpilepsyPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that the receipt of general anesthesia may be associated with an increased risk of epilepsy compared with neuraxial (i.e., spinal or epidural) anesthesia. Our study objective was to estimate the risk of developing new-onset epilepsy associated with the receipt of general anesthesia relative to neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Participants who underwent an eligible surgical procedure with general or neuraxial anesthesia between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2015, were included and followed for up to 5 years. Eligible surgical procedures included gynecologic, lower extremity, peripheral vascular, and urologic procedures that could be performed using general or neuraxial anesthesia. Patients with epilepsy or epilepsy risk factors in the 10 years before their surgical procedure were excluded. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for confounding and Fine-Gray subdistribution models to estimate the hazard ratio for epilepsy, accounting for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: The final sample included 100,547 patients who received general anesthesia and 76,644 patients who received neuraxial anesthesia. After weighting, the general and neuraxial anesthesia cohorts comprised 64.8% and 63.0% of women and the mean ages were 56.0 and 56.8 years, respectively. The estimated weighted event rates of epilepsy were 48.8 and 35.5 per 100,000 person-years for general and neuraxial anesthesia cohorts, respectively. The hazard ratio (HR) for epilepsy associated with general anesthesia was 0.61 at time zero (95% CI 0.34-1.07). However, there was evidence that risk changed over the five-year follow-up period (time interaction HR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.12-1.64). This led to a significantly increased risk of epilepsy associated with general anesthesia after approximately 3 years. DISCUSSION: The effects of general anesthesia may take multiple years to become significantly associated with an increased risk of epilepsy. However, our findings are likely affected by other factors, such as unmeasured differences between the anesthesia cohorts, types of surgical procedures, and the occurrence of epilepsy risk factors during follow-up. Future research should explore whether there is effect modification between specific surgical procedures and control for the onset of epilepsy risk factors after anesthesia receipt.

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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207