MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988065492 · doi:10.1177/088307380101600809

Temporal Lobectomy in Early Childhood: The Need for Long-Term Follow-Up

2001· review· en· W1988065492 on OpenAlexaff
Márcio A Sotero de Menezes, Mary Connolly, Addison Bolanos, Joseph R. Madsen, Peter McL. Black, James J. Riviello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyEpilepsyMedicineEpilepsy surgeryNeuroimagingTemporal lobectomyMagnetic resonance imagingAnticonvulsantAnterior temporal lobectomyPediatricsSurgeryAnesthesiaTemporal lobeRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We retrospectively identified 15 children ages 12 years and under with anticonvulsant resistant epilepsy who underwent a temporal lobectomy at Children's Hospital, Boston, between 1978 and 1993. Our aim was to study the long-term seizure outcome. Data pertaining to preoperative evaluation, electroencephalography (EEG), neuroimaging, surgery, seizure outcome, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Only patients followed for more than 12 months were included. The average duration of follow-up was 57 months. At the last visit, 47% (7 of 15) of the children were seizure free or only had auras: another 33% (5 of 15) had > 90% reduction in seizure frequency. Three patients had < 90% seizure reduction. Four cases were initially seizure free but had subsequent recurrence between 11 and 28 months after the epilepsy surgery. Factors associated with a good outcome include exclusively focal EEG discharges or an imaging suggestive of a low-grade tumor; factors associated with a poor outcome include generalized EEG discharges and a normal magnetic resonance image. Temporal lobectomy is useful in the treatment of early childhood drug-resistant partial epilepsy, but long-term follow-up is necessary as late seizure recurrence may occur up to 28 months after surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207