Verbal memory after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery in children: Do only mesial structures matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous findings have been mixed regarding verbal memory outcome after left temporal lobectomy in children, and there are few studies comparing verbal memory change after lateral versus mesial temporal lobe resections. We compared verbal memory outcome associated with sparing or including the mesial structures in children who underwent left or right temporal lobe resection. We also investigated predictors of postsurgical verbal memory change. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed verbal memory change approximately 1 year after unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy surgery using a list learning task. Participants included 23 children who underwent temporal lobe surgery with sparing of the mesial structures (13 left), and 40 children who had a temporal lobectomy that included resection of mesial structures (22 left). RESULTS: Children who underwent resection from the left lateral and mesial temporal lobe were the only group to show decline in verbal memory. Furthermore, when we considered language representation in the left temporal resection group, patients with left language representation and spared mesial structures showed essentially no change in verbal memory from preoperative to follow-up, whereas those with left language representation and excised mesial structures showed a decline. Postoperative seizure status had no effect on verbal memory change in children after left temporal lobe surgery. Finally, we found that patients with intact preoperative verbal memory experienced a significant decline compared to those with below average preoperative verbal memory. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings provide evidence of significant risk factors for verbal memory decline in children, specific to left mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Children who undergo left temporal lobe surgery that includes mesial structures may be most vulnerable for verbal memory decline, especially when language representation is localized to the left hemisphere and when preoperative verbal memory is intact.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".