MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252731810 · doi:10.1016/j.ebcr.2016.01.006

Potential brain language reorganization in a boy with refractory epilepsy; an fNIRS–EEG and fMRI comparison

2016· article· en· W2252731810 on OpenAlexaff
Phetsamone Vannasing, Isotta Cornaggia, Catherine Vanasse, Julie Tremblay, Paola Diadori, Sébastien Perreault, Maryse Lassonde, Anne Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsy & Behavior Case Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingLateralization of brain functionElectroencephalographyPsychologyNeuroscienceEpilepsy surgeryEEG-fMRIReceptive languageBrain activity and meditationCognitionAudiologyMedicineVocabulary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a presurgical investigation for a resection of a tumor located in the left temporal brain region, we evaluated pre- and postsurgical language lateralization in a right-handed boy with refractory epilepsy. In this study, we compared functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) results obtained while the participant performed expressive and receptive language tasks with those obtained using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This case study illustrates the potential for NIRS to contribute favorably to the localization of language functions in children with epilepsy and cognitive or behavioral problems and its potential advantages over fMRI in presurgical assessment. Moreover, it suggests that fNIRS is sensitive in localizing an atypical language network or potential brain reorganization related to epilepsy in young patients.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsy & Behavior Case ReportsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207