Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral hemispherectomy, the surgical removal of one cerebral hemisphere leaving the basal ganglia undisturbed, was introduced by Walter Dandy in 1928 as a radical treatment for diffuse malignant gliomas of the nondominant hemisphere.1 Although largely unsuccessful as a therapy for this malignancy, the degree of postoperative functional recovery was notable; 10 years later, this inspired the Canadian neurosurgeon Kenneth McKenzie to successfully employ hemispherectomy in a hemiplegic adult with medically resistant partial epilepsy.2 In 1950, Roland Krynauw, a South African neurosurgeon, reported beneficial effects of hemispherectomy on seizures, motor functioning, and development in a small cohort of children with congenital hemiparesis and epilepsy.3 After gaining widespread endorsement as a useful technique for seizures in patients with partial epilepsy and cerebral hemispheric dysfunction, the procedure was nearly abandoned when late-developing complications were recognized. Following an initially benign course of seven to ten years, some hemispherectomized patients gradually deteriorated and died from complications of obstructive hydrocephalus. The cause was traced to recurrent subdural bleeding from the vascular pedicle of the operative cavity, leading to granular ependymitis and superficial hemosiderosis. A smaller number of patients developed late intracranial hemorrhage attributed to chronic …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".