Does the Intracarotid Amobarbital Procedure Predict Global Amnesia After Temporal Lobectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) is widely used to help predict who might be at risk for postoperative amnesia after unilateral temporal lobectomy for intractable seizures. We describe the memory outcome in 10 patients who underwent standard temporal lobectomy, including mesial temporal structures, despite failing the memory portion of the IAP after injections both ipsilateral and contralateral to the resected seizure focus. METHODS: Data for seven of the study subjects were obtained through a retrospective review of patients assessed on a surgical epilepsy unit during a 15-year period who failed the Montreal Neurological Institute IAP memory protocol after both ipsilateral and contralateral injections and subsequently underwent unilateral temporal lobectomy. More recently, we have studied temporal lobectomy patients who failed the Medical College of Georgia memory protocol after both ipsilateral and contralateral injections (n = 3). Preoperative and postoperative memory test scores were compared, and data regarding seizure outcome and self-perception of postoperative memory were collected. RESULTS: At follow-up, none of the patients presented with a pattern indicative of a global amnesia, and 80% demonstrated >90% improvement in their seizure disorder or were seizure-free. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that bilateral memory failure on the IAP does not preclude the removal of an epileptogenic temporal lobe or a successful surgical outcome. In addition, the findings raise questions regarding the validity of the IAP and the possibility that memory may be reorganized in patients with a long history of temporal lobe epilepsy.
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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".