MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323577709 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31828211af

Presurgical Evaluation of Patients with Epilepsy

2013· review· en· W2323577709 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Chui, Lashmi Venkatraghavan, Pirjo Manninen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryAnestheticBrain functionSurgical resectionAnesthesiaSurgeryNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with medically refractory epilepsy when referred for surgical treatment often undergo extensive investigations to determine whether surgical treatment is feasible. Surgical feasibility is determined by identifying the location and number of seizure foci and their relationship to eloquent areas of the brain. Good surgical outcome depends on complete resection of seizure foci without any damage to eloquent brain function. Various noninvasive and invasive techniques are used in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy that include imaging techniques, electrophysiologic studies, and tests to determine functional areas. Understanding of the principles of seizure localization and of the effects of anesthetic drugs on the various preoperative investigations is essential for patient management. In this review article, we discuss the role of the anesthesiologist in patient management during many of these investigations and the role of anesthetic drugs to aid in the localization of the seizure focus and of determining eloquent brain function.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207