The combination of subdural and depth electrodes for intracranial EEG investigation of suspected insular (perisylvian) epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present two methods of implantation for the investigation of suspected insular and perisylvian epilepsy that combine depth and subdural electrodes to capitalize on the advantages of each technique. METHODS: Retrospective study of all intracranial EEG studies that included insular electrodes from 2004-2010. Patients were divided according to the implantation scheme. The first method (type 1) consisted of a craniotomy, insertion of insular electrodes after microdissection of the sylvian fissure, orthogonal implantation of mesiotemporal structures with neuronavigation, and coverage of the adjacent lobes with subdural electrodes. The second method (type 2) consisted of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-stereotactic frame-guided depth electrode implantation into insula and hippocampus using sagittal axes, and insertion of subdural electrodes through burr holes to cover the adjacent lobes. The combined implantations were developed and performed by one neurosurgeon (AB). KEY FINDINGS: Nineteen patients had an intracranial study that sampled the insula, among other regions. Sixteen patients were implanted using the first method, which allowed a mean of 4, 5, 20, 15, and 42 contacts per patient to be positioned into/over the insular, mesial temporal, neocortical temporal, parietal, and frontal areas, respectively. The second method (three patients) allowed a mean of 8, 7, 16, 6, and 9 contacts per patient to sample the same areas, respectively. The four patients in whom transient neurologic deficits occurred were investigated with use of type 1 implantation. SIGNIFICANCE: Combined depth and subdural electrodes can be used safely to investigate complex insular/perisylvian refractory epilepsy. Choice of implantation scheme should be individualized according to presurgical data and the need for functional localization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".