A Primer on Magnetic Resonance-Guided Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for Medically Refractory Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy surgery that eliminates the epileptogenic focus or disconnects the epileptic network has the potential to significantly improve seizure control in patients with medically intractable epilepsy. Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) has been an established option for epilepsy surgery since the US Food and Drug Administration cleared the use of MRgLITT in neurosurgery in 2007. MRgLITT is an ablative stereotactic procedure utilizing heat that is converted from laser energy, and the temperature of the tissue is monitored in real-time by MR thermography. Real-time quantitative thermal monitoring enables titration of laser energy for cellular injury, and it also estimates the extent of tissue damage. MRgLITT is applicable for lesion ablation in cases that the epileptogenic foci are localized and/or deep-seated such as in the mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hypothalamic hamartoma. Seizure-free outcomes after MRgLITT are comparable to those of open surgery in well-selected patients such as those with mesial temporal sclerosis. Particularly in patients with hypothalamic hamartoma. In addition, MRgLITT can also be applied to ablate multiple discrete lesions of focal cortical dysplasia and tuberous sclerosis complex without the need for multiple craniotomies, as well as disconnection surgery such as corpus callosotomy. Careful planning of the target, the optimal trajectory of the laser probe, and the appropriate parameters for energy delivery are paramount to improve the seizure outcome and to reduce the complication caused by the thermal damage to the surrounding critical structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".