ArticleEpilepsia2026
Theory of mind in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Theory of mind in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a common idiopathic generalized epilepsy often accompanied by executive dysfunction, affective symptoms, unfavorable behavior, and social outcomes, yet its impact on theory of mind (ToM) remains underexplored. We conducted an unmatched case-control study assessing 34 JME patients and 48 healthy controls, adjusted for age, sex, education, intelligence quotient, anxiety, and depression. Participants completed a brief version of the Faux Pas Recognition Test (FPRT) and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, alongside measures of executive function, prospective memory, and mood. In raw analyses, JME patients showed significantly lower FPRT total scores (mean ± SD = 22.9 ± 9 vs. 27.5 ± 7, p = .01) and FPRT Understanding (.80 ± .11 vs. .87 ± .14, p = .02). After adjusting for cognitive and affective covariates via propensity scoring, group differences in ToM performance were no longer significant (p > .20). These results suggest that ToM deficits in JME are mediated by broader cognitive and affective disturbances rather than reflecting a social cognitive impairment. Future longitudinal studies with larger samples and tighter pharmacological control are warranted.
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.