Differential neuropsychological test sensitivity to left temporal lobe epilepsy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the sensitivity of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), Boston Naming Test (BNT), and Multilingual Aphasia Examination Visual Naming subtest (MAE VN) to lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in patients who subsequently underwent anterior temporal lobectomy. For the AVLT (n = 189), left TLE patients performed more poorly than their right TLE counterparts [left TLE = 42.9 (10.6), right TLE = 47.7 (9.9); p < .002 (Cohen's d = .47)]. Although statistically significant, the CVLT group difference (n = 212) was of a smaller magnitude [left LTE = 40.7 (11.1), right TLE = 43.8 (9.9); (p < .03, Cohen's d = .29)] than the AVLT. Group differences were also present for both measures of confrontation naming ability [BNT: left LTE = 43.1 (8.9), right TLE = 48.1 (8.9); p < .001 (Cohen's d = .56); MAE VN: left TLE = 42.2, right TLE = 45.6, p = .02 (Cohen's d = .36)]. When these data were modeled in independent logistic regression analyses, the AVLT and BNT both significantly predicted side of seizure focus, although the positive likelihood ratios were modest. In the subset of 108 patients receiving both BNT and AVLT, the AVLT was the only significant predictor of seizure laterality, suggesting individual patient variability regarding whether naming or memory testing may be more sensitive to lateralized TLE.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it