Update on the surgical treatment of 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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Using the most recent evidence, we provide an update about epilepsy surgery, focusing on the presurgical evaluation and surgical planning, epilepsy surgery outcomes, and utilization. RECENT FINDINGS: Great strides are being achieved in the presurgical evaluation and planning for epilepsy surgery, including fundamental advances in imaging and neurophysiology. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrates that early surgery for patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is superior to medical therapy. The enduring benefits of surgery continue to be demonstrated, particularly after TLE surgery. However, studies examining the long-term outcomes after extratemporal lobe epilepsy surgery are scarce. Surgery is generally associated with an improvement in depression, but mostly in those with good surgical outcome. Complications from invasive monitoring or after epilepsy surgery are generally temporary, or limited in their symptomatology. One area in need of prospective studies is the topic of antiepileptic drug withdrawal after epilepsy surgery (Who? When? How?). Despite its proven effectiveness, epilepsy surgery continues to be underutilized, but new tools for health professionals are emerging to guide appropriate surgical referrals. SUMMARY: Important contributions to the field of epilepsy surgery are discussed, in particular emerging imaging (fMRI) and neurophysiological (high-frequency oscillations) techniques. Epilepsy surgery is effective, well tolerated but still underutilized.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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