MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413414652 · doi:10.1002/epi4.70128

Why patients say no: Patient barriers to epilepsy surgery among patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy in Singapore

2025· article· en· W4413414652 on OpenAlex
Zhibin Tan, Meenatchii Shanmugham, Sangeetha Adiyapatham, Zhi En Chan, Zhi Yi Chan, Hua Chan Ling, Jia Yi Shen, Tushar Gosavi, Deidre Anne De Silva, Shih Hui Lim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyMedicineEpilepsy surgeryDrug Resistant EpilepsyDiseaseSocioeconomic statusNeurologyCross-sectional studyFamily medicinePsychiatryPopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy surgery is globally underutilized due to disease-, system-, and patient-related barriers. These barriers are suboptimally understood in Asia. Patient-related barriers are of particular interest because they are culture-specific and may present a significant obstacle regardless of resource availability. This study aims to identify patient-related barriers in Singapore, an ethnically heterogeneous Asian country. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients attending the neurology specialist outpatient clinic of a major tertiary hospital in Singapore. The survey contained 28 items assessing patient perceptions of epilepsy and its treatment, and 7 items on the patient's socioeconomic status. It was adapted with permission from a previous Canadian study. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients completed the survey. Most patients (74.2%) were aware of surgery as an option for the treatment of epilepsy, and patients with university degrees were more likely to be aware (p = 0.007). Most (69.7%) viewed surgery as a "last resort," and 83.3% overestimated the risks of surgery. Even when hypothetically offered guarantees of surgical success, only 57.6% of patients responded favorably to surgery, with those acknowledging their seizures as disabling being more likely to respond favorably (p = 0.027). Financial considerations did not significantly influence reactions to hypothetically successful surgery (p = 1.000). SIGNIFICANCE: There are major patient-related barriers to epilepsy surgery among DRE patients in Singapore, contributed by an overestimation of surgical risks and an indifference to seizure-related disability in some patients. Based on our findings, financial subsidies alone may not suffice in addressing patient-related barriers; accompanying patient education efforts may be important. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A survey of patients with refractory epilepsy in Singapore revealed that patients are relatively averse to undergoing pre-surgical evaluation and surgical treatment for epilepsy, despite scientific evidence of effectiveness. Some of the major barriers include patients overestimating the risks of epilepsy surgery and perceiving seizures to be non-disabling. Our findings suggest that financial subsidies for surgery alone may not overcome patients' aversion to surgery, and that patient education is also required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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