The incidence and prevalence of drug resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In order to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO and the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We used a double arcsine transformation and random-effects models to carry out our meta-analyses. We performed random-effects meta-regressions using study-level data. Results: Our search strategy identified 10,794 abstracts. Of these, 103 articles met our eligibility criteria. There was high inter-study heterogeneity and risk of bias. The cumulative incidence of DRE was 25.0 % (95% CI: 16.8, 34.3) in child studies but 14.6% (95% CI: 8.8, 21.6) in adult/mixed ages studies. The prevalence of DRE was 13.7% (95% CI: 9.2, 19.0) in population/community-based populations but 36.3% (95% CI: 30.4, 42.4) in clinic-based cohorts. Meta-regression confirmed that the prevalence of DRE was higher in clinic-based populations and in focal epilepsy. Multiple predictors and correlates of DRE were identified. The most reported of these were having a neurological deficit, an abnormal EEG, and symptomatic epilepsy. The most reported genetic predictors of DRE were polymorphisms of the ABCB1 gene. Conclusions: Our observations provide a basis for estimating the incidence and prevalence of DRE, which vary between populations. We identified numerous putative DRE predictors and correlates. These findings are important to plan epilepsy services, including epilepsy surgery, a crucial treatment option for people with disabling seizures and DRE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".