MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408384860 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1491716

Cognitive dysfunction and its associated factors in patients with epilepsy at referral hospitals in the Amhara region: an institutional-based cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4408384860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lemlemu Maru, Yibeltal Yismaw Gela, Mihret Getnet, Dagnew Getnet Adugna, Desalegn Anmut Bitew, Ephrem Tesfaye, Hailu Aragie, Awgichew Behaile Teklemariam, Wondwosen Debebe, Mitku Mammo Taderegew, Nega Dagnew Baye, Mihret Melese

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineEpilepsyReferralCognitionLogistic regressionCross-sectional studyDepression (economics)Quality of life (healthcare)AnxietyCognitive declinePsychiatryAffect (linguistics)DiseaseCognitive impairmentInternal medicinePsychologyFamily medicineDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Epilepsy is a multifactorial disease characterized by spontaneous, recurrent seizures and a growing incidence of comorbid conditions such as anxiety, depression, cognitive dysfunction, and sudden unexpected death. Patients with epilepsy often experience cognitive impairment or dysfunction that can negatively affect their quality of life. There is limited research on cognitive dysfunction assessed through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in the Amhara region, although the MoCA is considered superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Therefore, this study aimed to assess cognitive dysfunction and identify factors associated with it in patients with epilepsy who were receiving follow-up care at referral hospitals in the Amhara region. Materials and methods A multicenter, institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with epilepsy who were receiving follow-up care at randomly selected referral hospitals in the Amhara region from January 2024 to July 2024. A total of 355 participants were recruited for the study using a systematic random sampling technique, achieving a response rate of 98%. Cognitive dysfunction was measured using the MoCA. Data were entered with EpiData version 4.7 and then exported into SPSS version 26 for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, and a p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. The results are presented in text and tables. Results The majority of the participants were women (52.1%). The mean age of the study participants was 31 (± 5.4) years. The prevalence of cognitive dysfunction was 29% (95% CI: 25.8, 34.5). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that several factors were statistically significantly associated with cognitive dysfunction. Factors associated with cognitive dysfunction included being a rural resident (adjusted odds ratios (AOR) = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.29, 1.43), having a medical illness (AOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 2.1, 9.1), experiencing generalized seizures (AOR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.1), having a seizure frequency of daily to every other day (AOR = 2; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.2), experiencing seizures for more than 30 years (AOR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.7, 7.6), and using a combination of anti-seizure drugs (AOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 6.2). Conclusions and recommendations In this study, a significant proportion of patients with epilepsy receiving follow-up care experienced cognitive dysfunction. Neuropsychological assessment should be emphasized in patients with epilepsy at diagnosis and early follow-up phases of the condition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207