Efficacy of and morbidity associated with stereoelectroencephalography using computerized tomography– or magnetic resonance imaging–guided electrode implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The purpose of this paper was to define the general efficacy of and morbidity associated with stereoelectroencephalography using modem methods of imaging and to particularize the risks related to specific lobes of the brain. METHODS: All patients admitted to the Montreal Neurological Institute who had undergone either computerized tomography- or magnetic resonance imaging-guided electrode implantation by one surgeon (A.O.) were reviewed. The procedure was considered efficient if the obtained information was sufficient to make a decision either in support of or against surgery. Two hundred seventeen patients underwent 224 implantations with 3022 electrodes. Complications related to each lobe were as follows: temporal lobe, two abscesses (0.54%); frontal lobe, one abscess and three hematomas (1.4%); and occipital lobe, one hypointense lesion found 1 week after electrode explantation (2.6%). Significant risk factors associated with hematomas were implantation in the frontal lobe (p < 0.05) and the use of four or more implanted electrodes (p < 0.025). General complications included the following: 26 patients, psychiatric symptoms during monitoring; one patient, meningitis; four patients, scalp cellulitis; and two patients, hemiparesis during angiography in the early 1980s. One of these latter patients maintained a mild hemiparesis and represents the only case of permanent neurological sequela in the entire series. Data obtained during recordings supported an indication for surgery in 178 patients (79.5%), excluded a surgical option in 37 patients (16.5%), and were unsatisfactory in nine patients (4%). Thus, the overall efficacy as defined previously was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: Stereoelectroencephalography is an efficient procedure with low associated morbidity. Bilateral exploration of the temporal lobes has a morbidity rate of approximately 1%. A higher risk of hematomas occurs with the implantation of four or more electrodes in the frontal lobes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".