Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postictal noserubbing (PIN) has been identified as a good, albeit imperfect, lateralizing and localizing sign in human partial epilepsy, possibly related to ictal autonomic activation. METHODS: PIN was studied prospectively in a group of consecutive patients admitted for video-EEG monitoring, with the laterality of noserubbing correlated with electrographic sites of seizure onset, intra- and interhemispheric spread, and sites of seizure termination. RESULTS: PIN was significantly more frequent in temporal than extratemporal epilepsy (p<0.001; 23/41 (56%) patients and 41/197 (21%) seizures in temporal lobe epilepsy compared with 4/34 (12%) patients and 12/167 (7%) seizures in extratemporal epilepsy). The hand used to rub the nose was ipsilateral to the side of seizure onset in 83% of both temporal and extratemporal seizures. Seizures with contralateral PIN correlated with spread to the contralateral temporal lobe on scalp EEG (p<0.04). All extratemporal seizures with PIN showed spread to temporal lobe structures. One patient investigated with intracranial electrodes showed PIN only when ictal activity spread to involve the amygdala: seizures confined to the hippocampus were not associated with PIN. PIN was not observed in 63 nonepileptic events in 17 patients. Unexpectedly, one patient with primary generalized epilepsy showed typical PIN after 1/3 recorded absence seizures. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms PIN as a good indicator of ipsilateral temporal lobe seizure onset. Instances of false lateralization and localization appear to reflect seizure spread to contralateral or ipsilateral temporal lobe structures, respectively. Involvement of the amygdala appears to be of prime importance for induction of PIN.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".