ReviewEpilepsia2025
Epilepsy as a dynamic disease: Toward actionable, individualized seizure risk prediction.
Review in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global trends in epilepsy and the Chinese experience: Epidemiological transitions, underlying mechanisms, and integrated strategies (1990-2021).Neuroprotection (Chichester, England) · 2026Review
- Continuous Versus Short EEG After Ischemic Stroke: What cEEG Adds for Detecting Abnormalities and Predicting Post-Stroke Epilepsy.Annals of neurology · 2026Article
- Comment on "Factors associated with epileptiform discharges in patients visiting a memory clinic: A retrospective study".Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2026Article
- Peri-Ictal MRI Abnormalities and Risk of Unprovoked Seizures After De Novo Status Epilepticus.Neurology · 2026Article
- Post-stroke seizures: classification, risk prediction, and management.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Epilepsy as a dynamic disease: Toward actionable, individualized seizure risk prediction.Epilepsia · 2025Review
- Pharmacological strategies for preventing post-stroke seizures and epilepsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current definition of epilepsy allows diagnosis after a single unprovoked seizure if the estimated 10-year recurrence risk is ≥60%. While this framework is grounded in epidemiological evidence, it does not align with the shorter time horizons that guide many clinical and personal decisions. In acquired epilepsies, such as those following stroke, traumatic brain injury, or CNS infections, most recurrences occur within 1-2 years, with risk declining sharply thereafter. This temporal clustering challenges the use of static, long-term risk thresholds in isolation. Dynamic tools, such as the Chance of an Occurrence of a Seizure in the Next Year (COSY) and validated prognostic models (e.g., SeLECT, CAVE, RISE), offer recalculable, near-term estimates that reflect evolving patient status. These metrics can improve communication, inform treatment thresholds through Number Needed to Treat (NNT) calculations, and enhance clinical trial recruitment by targeting periods of highest risk. However, barriers remain, including limited integration into guidelines, gaps in external validation, and the "Oedipus effect," where probabilistic predictions influence patient behavior, treatment decisions, and research outcomes. Incorporating individualized, time-sensitive risk prediction into clinical frameworks may better align diagnostic definitions with patient needs, reduce overtreatment, and optimize both everyday care and research in epilepsy prevention and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.