Neuropsychology: Traditional and New Methods of Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neuropsychological assessment is an integral part of the clinical investigation of patients suffering from epilepsy. The aim of the evaluation is to determine disease-related and treatment-related effects on cognition and behavior in order to orient therapeutic interventions, by taking into account the compensatory mechanisms that are available to the patient. Examples of the tests best illustrating the classical neuropsychological protocol are presented. Neuropsychology also plays an important role in the assessment of language lateralization in patients slated for epilepsy surgery. Traditionally, this has been achieved by means of the rather invasive Wada procedure. However, with the advent of new neuroimaging techniques, this procedure is gradually being replaced by minimally invasive or noninvasive methods, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and optical imaging. In the present paper, we discuss some of the newer techniques that are available to the neuropsychologist for the study of the impact of epilepsy on cerebral functioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".