Sturge-Weber Syndrome. Study of 55 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the clinical and neuroimaging features of a large series of patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) seen over a 40-year period. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with SWS (30 males and 25 females), were studied between 1965 and 2004. Results of neurological and ophthalmological examinations, electroencephalographic, and neuroimaging studies were reviewed. All patients were seen by one of the authors (I. P-C). RESULTS: Epilepsy, hemiparesis, mental retardation and ocular problems were the most frequent and severe features of patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome in this series. The facial nevus flammeus was unilateral in 35 (63.5%) patients, bilateral in 17 (31%) and absent in 3 (5.5%) of the patients with leptomeningeal angiomas. Seven (41%) of the 17 patients with bilateral nevus flammeus had unilateral leptomeningeal angiomas. Seizures occurred in 47 patients (85.5%). Complete seizure control was obtained in 20 patients (42.5%), but in 2 of these 20 patients seizures were controlled only after lobectomy. All patients with unilateral or bilateral upper eyelid nevus flammeus had ipsilateral, unilateral or bilateral choroid-retinal angiomas. Only 20 (36%) of the 55 patients had low-normal or borderline intelligence (IQs < 70). No relationship was observed between the size of the facial nevus flammeus and the severity of the brain lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy, hemiparesis, mental retardation and ocular problems were the most frequent and severe features of patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome in this series. Cerebral lesions followed a progressive course during early childhood, but not later. Early surgical treatment controlled the seizures but other neurological problems such as hemiparesis and intellectual deficits showed a less satisfactory response. Early onset of seizures and poor response to medical treatment, bilateral cerebral involvement and unilateral severe lesions were indicative of a poor prognosis. Limited intelligence and social skills, poor aesthetic appearance and seizures complicated the integration of SWS patients. These features must be addressed in order for the patients improve social interactions, obtain gainful employment and achieve a better quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".