Seizure recurrence after first epileptic episode in ischemic stroke: Risk factors and their association with cognition and mood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ischemic stroke (IS) survivors face an elevated risk of epileptic seizures, and recurrent seizures following the first episode often signal worsening functional outcomes. AIM To investigate risk factors associated with seizure recurrence after a first episode in patients with IS and explore their associations with cognitive function, anxiety, and depression. METHODS A total of 100 patients with IS admitted to Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital between January 2017 and January 2024 were enrolled in this study. After a 1-5-year follow-up, patients were categorized into recurrence (n = 43) and non-recurrence (n = 57) groups. Their medical records were collected and analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses to determine potential predictors of seizure recurrence. Variables with statistical significance in the univariate analysis were incorporated into a binary logistic regression model for multivariate analysis. The risk model’s predictive performance was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curve. How independent risk factors, identified in multivariate analysis, related to cognitive [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)] and emotional [Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)/Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS)] outcomes, were assessed. RESULTS Recurrent seizures were significantly associated with age, stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale), late-onset seizures, electroencephalogram abnormalities, cortical involvement, hemorrhagic infarction, and extensive cerebral infarctions, with late-onset seizures, cortical involvement, and hemorrhagic infarction serving as independent predictors. The risk model revealed an area under the curve of 0.732, with 88.37% specificity and 42.11% sensitivity. These three were also correlated with lower MoCA scores and higher SAS and SDS scores. CONCLUSION In patients with IS, recurrent seizures after the first episode can be independently predicted by late-onset seizures, cortical involvement, and hemorrhagic cerebral infarction-factors also correlating with cognitive impairment and emotional distress. These findings underscore the need for close clinical monitoring and targeted interventions (e.g. , cognitive rehabilitation and psychological support) to mitigate seizure recurrence in high-risk individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".