Temporolimbic Activation by Intracranial Electrical Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the results of intracranial electrical stimulation (ICES) as a pre-surgical tool in order to select the side of the operation in bitemporal lobe epilepsy (BTLE) patients who underwent depth electrode (DE) implantation. METHODS: We reviewed the files of 77 medically intractable BTLE patients who underwent ICES with positive results through implanted DEs and then were under surgical treatment. One year or more after surgery, we evaluated the outcome. ICES was performed through: 1) Square-wave bipolar stimulation with symmetrical pulses of 60 Hz for 0.5 ms was delivered by a constant current Nuclear Chicago stimulator; 2) An initial intensity of 0.5 mA, and subsequently progressively stronger currents at 1-2 and occasionally 3 or 4 mA; 3) The duration of a single stimulation was usually 5 seconds; 4) The volume of tissue effectively stimulated did not exceed 5 mm. RESULTS: We obtained habitual auras or seizures (clinical responses, CRs) in 74 patients and after-discharges, ADs in 61 of them, according to Engel's classification for post surgery outcomes. If CRs or ADs were obtained by stimulation of only one temporal lobe the result of epilepsy surgery tended to be better (Engel classes I or II) when the operation was done on the same side of positive CRs (15 cases) or ADs (14 cases), and tended to be worse (Engel classes III or IV) when the ICES had provoked bilateral responses or when the side operated on was contra-lateral to positive CRs (33 cases) or ADs (28 cases). Statistical analyses were performed in order to test these results and we found better post-operative results when the resection took place in the same side of positive responses to ICES (CRs: chi2 4.74 and p=0.0295; ADs: chi2 7.57 and p=0.0059). CONCLUSION: In addition to other methods (PET, MRI and neuropsychology) presurgical ICES can provide useful data in the process of identifying the temporal lobe to be targeted for resection in BTLE 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".