Complex Central Cortex in Pediatric Patients With Malformations of Cortical Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether malformations of cortical development yield a complex central cortex by studying nine children with malformations of cortical development and seven without malformations who underwent epilepsy surgery following extraoperative subdural somatosensory evoked potential and electrical stimulation to identify the sensorimotor cortex. We analyzed superficial structures of the central cortex, latency, amplitude, and location of N20 and P25. Sensorimotor responses in malformations of cortical development extended across the central sulcus in 1 to 4 of 3 to 12 electrodes (mean 32%) compared with 1 to 6 of 4 to 15 electrodes (mean 12%) in cases without malformations with a statistical significance (P < .05). N20 amplitudes were lower in epileptic than nonepileptic cortices (three with and three without malformations of cortical development) (P < .05). The central vein coursed partially along the central sulcus in eight cases of malformations of cortical development and five cases without malformations. We conclude that the sensorimotor cortex in malformations of cortical development is more complex than in cases without malformations, reduced N20 amplitude is indicative of epileptic sensorimotor cortex, and superficial veins do not indicate the sensory and motor cortical boundary.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".