Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This retrospective study was undertaken to determine if patients having tactile-evoked rolandic discharges were a more "benign" patient population than those with spontaneously occurring nontactile rolandic discharges and to determine whether the presence of tactile-evoked rolandic discharges was a marker for the future development of epilepsy, as previously reported. METHODS: During this 8-year study, 304 patients were seen with rolandic discharges. These patients all had tactile stimulation of their hands and/or feet. They formed two groups: patients with spontaneous rolandic discharges that could not be evoked by tactile stimulation (NT) and patients with spontaneous rolandic discharges that could be enhanced with tactile stimulation (TE). Over a 14-month period, every patient had tactile stimulation of both hands and both feet, resulting in a third group of patients having rolandic discharges seen only with tapping (TO). RESULTS: Tactile-enhanced discharges constituted 38.2% of all rolandic discharges. Patients with TE and TO discharges had a higher incidence of normal development and intelligence, normal neurologic examinations, and a lower incidence of seizures and focal or generalized background abnormalities on their EEGs. Only one patient with normal background and no coexisting epileptiform abnormalities had partial motor seizures with corresponding contralateral central discharges. Only two patients who had no seizures at the time of their first EEG subsequently went on to develop seizures. Neither fit the pattern of the seizure disorder described in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: It is hypothesized that tactile-evoked rolandic discharges are a benign, age-related phenomenon, which do not represent a marker for the future development of epilepsy and are not the interictal electrographic correlate to an already existing seizure disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".