Hippocampal electrical stimulation in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjustable, reversible therapies are needed for patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Electrical stimulation of the hippocampus has been proposed as a possible treatment for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). METHODS: Four patients with refractory MTLE whose risk to memory contraindicated temporal lobe resection underwent implantation of a chronic stimulating depth electrode along the axis of the left hippocampus. The authors used continuous, subthreshold electrical stimulation (90 microsec, 190 Hz) and a double blind, multiple cross-over, randomized controlled design, consisting of three treatment pairs, each containing two 1-month treatment periods. During each treatment pair the stimulator was randomly turned ON 1 month and OFF 1 month. Outcomes were assessed at monthly intervals in a double blind manner, using standardized instruments and accounting for a washout period. The authors compared outcomes between ON, OFF, and baseline periods. RESULTS: Hippocampal stimulation produced a median reduction in seizures of 15%. All but one patient's seizures improved; however, the results did not reach significance. Effects seemed to carry over into the OFF period, and an implantation effect cannot be ruled out. The authors found no significant differences in other outcomes. There were no adverse effects. One patient has been treated for 4 years and continues to experience substantial long-term seizure improvement. CONCLUSION: The authors demonstrate important beneficial trends, some long-term benefits, and absence of adverse effects of hippocampal electrical stimulation in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. However, the effect sizes observed were smaller than those reported in non-randomized, unblinded studies.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".