MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

More on the history of temporal lobe surgery

2008· letter· en· W1588206508 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerome Engel

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUCB Pharma
KeywordsTemporal lobeIctalElectroencephalographyPsychologyFrontal lobeAnterior temporal lobectomyNeuroscienceEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editors: I appreciated Dr. Moran's letter to the editor (Moran, 2008) providing a more balanced background to the historical paper by De Almeida et al. (2007), which discussed Penfield's role in the decision to include mesial structures in temporal lobe resections. I agree that it is unclear whether Morris (1950, 1956) took the initial bold step to remove normal-appearing hippocampus, and that there is a tendency toward hagiography when Penfield's disciples write about his contributions. Given the rapidly developing field throughout the Americas and Europe at the time (see Gastaut, 1954; Baldwin & Bailey, 1958), it is equally likely that the approach evolved simultaneously at many centers, for reasons that have not been documented. In defense of the Montreal Neurologic Institute (MNI), however, Dr Moran is incorrect when he attributes Gibbs with the first EEG evidence that psychomotor seizures were of temporal lobe origin (Gibbs et al., 1948). I was taught by Murray Falconer to always say that Bailey & Gibbs (1951) were the first to perform temporal lobe resections on the basis of EEG evidence alone, but not because Gibbs was the first electroencephalographer to recognize the localizing value of anterior temporal EEG spikes, but because Bailey was the first neurosurgeon willing to operate on this evidence alone. Jasper & Kershman (1941) fully described temporal interictal EEG correlates of masticatory, olfactory, and visual auras, motor automatisms, and ictal “dreamy states” 7 years before Gibbs. Interestingly, Jasper republished this information in the 1941 textbook by Penfield & Erickson (1941), while Penfield concluded, in the same textbook (page 462), that “when an encephalograph (meaning pneumoencephalogram) shows no evidence of a lesion, either atrophic or expanding, in that area of brain in which the seizures are arising, as indicated by seizure classification, any operative procedure is probably doomed to turn out to be a negative exploration.” As Moran points out, the classic paper of Penfield & Flanigin (1950), on 68 temporal lobe operations, contained only three in which mesial temporal structures were removed, although the following year Jasper et al. (1951), the same year that the Bailey and Gibbs surgical paper appeared, published the EEG findings on these patients, including intraoperative electrocorticography, which captured a seizure originating in the mesial temporal lobe. My own conclusion when I was preparing a history of epilepsy surgery (Engel, 1993) was that Jasper fully understood the importance of mesial temporal structures in the generation of what we now call complex partial seizures, but that Penfield paid little attention to the EEG and directed his surgical resections entirely to removal of structural lesions. Before publishing this history, I sent the manuscript to Herman Flanigin, who was coauthor on both of the MNI papers, and his response was, “That's exactly what happened.” Conflict of interest: I confirm that I have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this letter is consistent with those guidelines. I have no conflicts of interest with respect to this letter.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207