MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2030644699 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100013391

Functional MRI Applications in Epilepsy Surgery

2012· review· en· W2030644699 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Craig A. Beers, Paolo Federico

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpilepsy surgeryNeuroimagingEpilepsyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeurosciencePsychologyFunctional neuroimagingEEG-fMRIMagnetic resonance imagingElectroencephalographyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a non-invasive neuroimaging technique that has grown rapidly in popularity over the past decade. It is already prevalent in psychology, cognitive and basic neuroscience research and is being used increasingly as a tool for clinical decision-making in epilepsy. It has been used to determine language location and laterality in patients, sometimes eliminating the need for invasive tests. fMRI can been used pre-surgically to guide resection margins, preserving eloquent cortex. Other fMRI paradigms assessing memory, visual and somatosensory systems have limited clinical applications currently, but show great promise. Simultaneous recording of electroencephalogram (EEG) and fMRI has also provided insights into the networks underlying seizure generation and is increasingly being used in epilepsy centres. In this review, we present some of the current clinical applications for fMRI in the pre-surgical assessment of epilepsy patients, and examine a number of new techniques that may soon become clinically relevant.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→