Microsurgery of epileptic foci in the insular region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The insular region has long been neglected in the investigation and treatment of refractory epilepsy. Surgery in the insular region is rarely performed because of the risk of injury to the opercula, the arteries transiting on the surface of the insula, and the deep structures such as the basal ganglia and the internal capsule. This study was undertaken to report the results of insular surgery using modern microsurgical techniques in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective study of cases involving patients who underwent surgery for insular lesions associated with epilepsy over the last 10 years. In the majority of patients, intracranial electrodes were implanted with neuronavigation guidance to confirm the localization of the epileptic foci. RESULTS: Nine patients underwent insular surgery: 7 for refractory epilepsy with no tumor and 2 for tumors associated with seizures. Four of the resections were performed in the left hemisphere. After an average follow-up of 54 months (range 14-122 months), Engel Class IA outcome had been achieved in 6 of 7 cases in the Epilepsy Surgery Group. The remaining patient had an Engel Class III outcome after partial insular resection but later became seizurefree (Engel Class IA) following insular Gamma Knife surgery. Postoperatively, the majority of patients suffered from minor reversible hemipareses that disappeared completely within a few months. There was no surgical mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Insular surgery is both safe and beneficial when it is well planned and performed with modern microsurgical techniques and good anatomical knowledge. Insulectomy is associated with little permanent morbidity and a high rate of seizure control. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first series of insulectomies predominantly performed for refractory epilepsy since those performed by Penfield.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".