MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unveiling epileptogenic lesions: The contribution of image processing

2011· review· en· W1522643093 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Bernasconi, Neda Bernasconi

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineDiseaseNeuroimagingRadiologyNeurosciencePathologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a pivotal component in the investigation of patients with any form of epilepsy because of its unmatched ability in visualizing structural brain pathology. The MRI signature of newly diagnosed epilepsy is not yet fully defined, mainly because of the lack of a cohesive methodology to evaluate structural changes in the early stages of the disease. By revealing subtle lesions that previously eluded visual inspection in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, quantitative computer-assisted image analysis has clearly demonstrated increased sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional techniques. Therefore, the application of image processing methods in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy promises to reduce the trial-error period in potential surgical candidates, provide solid biomarkers for monitoring the disease and identifying treatment responders. A clearer understanding of brain pathology at the early stages of the disorder will help clinicians to develop better criteria for identifying patients who are at risk of secondary brain damage and for timely intervention that achieves seizure control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207