Surgical Resection for Intractable Epilepsy in “Double Cortex” Syndrome Yields Inadequate Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the results of surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy in patients with subcortical band heterotopia, or double cortex syndrome, a diffuse neuronal migration disorder. METHODS: We studied eight patients (five women) with double cortex syndrome and intractable epilepsy. All had a comprehensive presurgical evaluation including prolonged video-EEG recordings and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: All patients had partial seizures, with secondary generalization in six of them. Neurologic examination was normal in all. Three were of normal intelligence, and five were mildly retarded. Six patients underwent invasive EEG recordings, three of them with subdural grids and three with stereotactic implanted depth electrodes (SEEG). Although EEG recordings showed multilobar epileptic abnormalities in most patients, regional or focal seizure onset was recorded in all. MRI showed bilateral subcortical band heterotopia, asymmetric in thickness in three. An additional area of cortical thickening in the left frontal lobe was found in one patient. Surgical procedures included multiple subpial transections in two patients, frontal lesionectomy in one, temporal lobectomy with amygdalohippocampectomy in five, and an additional anterior callosotomy in one. Five patients had no significant improvement, two had some improvement, and one was greatly improved. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support focal surgical removal of epileptogenic tissue in patients with double cortex syndrome, even in the presence of a relatively localized epileptogenic area.
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".