Localization of somatosensory function by using positron emission tomography scanning: a comparison with intraoperative cortical stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object To investigate the utility of [ 15 O]H 2 O positron emission tomography (PET) activation studies in the presurgical mapping of primary somatosensory cortex, the authors compared the magnitude and location of activation foci obtained using PET scanning with the results of intraoperative cortical stimulation (ICS). Methods The authors used PET scanning and vibrotactile stimulation (of the face, hand, or foot) to localize the primary somatosensory cortex before surgical resection of mass lesions or epileptogenic foci affecting the central area in 20 patients. With the aid of image-guided surgical systems, the locations of significant activation foci on PET scanning were compared with those of positive ICS performed at craniotomy after the patient had received a local anesthetic agent. In addition, the relationship between the magnitude and statistical significance of blood flow changes and the presence of positive ICS was examined. In 22 (95.6%) of 23 statistically significant (p < 0.05) PET activation foci, spatially concordant sites on ICS were also observed. Intraoperative cortical stimulation was positive in 40% of the PET activation studies that did not result in statistically significant activation. In the patients showing these results, there was a clearly identifiable t-statistic peak that was spatially concordant with the site of positive ICS in the sensorimotor area. All PET activation foci with a t statistic greater than 4.75 were associated with spatially concordant sites of positive ICS. All PET activation foci with a t statistic less than 3.2 were associated with negative ICS. Conclusions Positron emission tomography is an accurate method for mapping the primary somatosensory cortex before surgery. The need for ICS, which requires local anesthesia, may be eliminated when PET foci with high (> 4.75) or low (< 3.20) t-statistic peaks are elicited by vibrotactile stimulation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".