MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982249520 · doi:10.1177/088307380201700507

Complex Central Cortex in Pediatric Patients With Malformations of Cortical Development

2002· article· en· W1982249520 on OpenAlexaff
Takuya Akai, Hiroshi Otsubo, Elizabeth W. Pang, James T. Rutka, Shiro Chitoku, Shelly Weiss, O. Carter Snead

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCortex (anatomy)NeuroscienceMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207