MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408340102 · doi:10.7759/cureus.80387

A Comprehensive Review on the Influence of Menstrual Cycle and Pregnancy on Epileptic Seizures

2025· review· en· W4408340102 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Kolomar, L Blanco, Irlanda lince Flores del Valle, Shreya Singh, Farah Algitagi, Esaúl Marroquín León

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyMenstrual cycleEpilepsyMenstruationObstetricsPsychiatryEndocrinologyInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This narrative review aims to assess the influence of hormonal balance during the menstrual cycle and pregnancy on the severity of epileptic seizures. Hormonal fluctuations, particularly in estrogen and progesterone levels, significantly influence neuronal excitability and seizure thresholds, with estrogen generally enhancing excitatory activity and progesterone providing a stabilizing effect. These hormonal variations are particularly evident in conditions like catamenial epilepsy, where seizure frequency corresponds to specific phases of the menstrual cycle. Pregnancy adds further complexity, as shifts in hormonal dominance can lead to variable effects on seizure patterns. Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing tailored management strategies to improve outcomes for women with epilepsy during their reproductive years. This review consolidates existing knowledge and highlights areas where further research is needed to address clinical challenges and optimize care.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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