Patients with Temporoparietal Ictal Symptoms and Inferomesial EEG Do Not Benefit from Anterior Temporal Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of posterior structural lesions leading to inadequate results after inferomesial temporal resection is well recognized. Here we present poor surgical outcome in six patients with nonlesional intractable epilepsy, well-defined focal anterior and inferomesial temporal epileptic discharges, and posterior temporoparietal symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed patient data including scalp video-EEG telemetry, intracranial EEG recording, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences (1.5 Tesla), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) findings. RESULTS: Ictal onset was uni- or bilateral diffuse with late preponderance over one temporal, or centrotemporoparietal regions. Four patients had preresection intracranial EEG monitoring, which suggested an epileptogenic zone in the posterior temporal and inferior parietal area in two, in the temporal lobe in one, and was inconclusive in the remaining one, who showed late epileptiform activity in the temporal neocortex. A second intracranial implantation was performed in three of them after a first anterior temporal resection. This led to posterior temporal neocortical localization in two and posterior temporal-inferior parietal localization in one. Including subpial transection, these six patients had one to four operations each, but only limited improvement occurred as a result of surgery in this group of individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that anterior and inferomesial interictal epileptiform temporal discharges and at times even intracranial EEG monitoring may be misleading. Anteromesial temporal resection is ineffective in patients with posterior temporoparietal clinical ictal features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".