Memory Outcomes Following Selective Versus Nonselective Temporal Lobe Removal: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surgical removal of brain tissue for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy can be either nonselective, as with an anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL), or selective, as with a selective amygdalohippocampectomy (SAH). Although seizure outcomes are similar with both procedures, cognitive and memory outcomes remain a matter of debate. This study aims to evaluate current evidence with regard to memory outcomes in ATL and SAH. A systematic literature review was conducted combining the search term “memory” with each of the search terms “temporal lobe epilepsy surgery,”“anterior temporal lobectomy,” and “amygdalohippocampectomy,” with articles from 1995 to November 2011 included. A total of 27 articles met the inclusion criteria. These were compared using statistically significant outcomes from validated neuropsychological tests assessing verbal and visual memory. Analysis revealed that verbal memory decline is significantly associated with left ATL, while visual memory decline is significantly associated with right ATL. Evidence for memory outcomes in SAH, however, was inconclusive, as studies failed to show a consistent pattern with regard to type of memory decline and side of surgery. Surgery of the left temporal lobe relates to verbal memory decline, while surgery of the right temporal lobe relates to visual memory decline. Despite this generality, however, further research is necessary to determine the superiority of selective versus nonselective temporal surgical methods in regard to these memory outcomes and their effects on learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".