Recommendations for the use of structural magnetic resonance imaging in the care of patients with epilepsy: A consensus report from the International League Against Epilepsy Neuroimaging Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is of fundamental importance to the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy, particularly when surgery is being considered. Despite previous recommendations and guidelines, practices for the use of MRI are variable worldwide and may not harness the full potential of recent technological advances for the benefit of people with epilepsy. The International League Against Epilepsy Diagnostic Methods Commission has thus charged the 2013-2017 Neuroimaging Task Force to develop a set of recommendations addressing the following questions: (1) Who should have an MRI? (2) What are the minimum requirements for an MRI epilepsy protocol? (3) How should magnetic resonance (MR) images be evaluated? (4) How to optimize lesion detection? These recommendations target clinicians in established epilepsy centers and neurologists in general/district hospitals. They endorse routine structural imaging in new onset generalized and focal epilepsy alike and describe the range of situations when detailed assessment is indicated. The Neuroimaging Task Force identified a set of sequences, with three-dimensional acquisitions at its core, the harmonized neuroimaging of epilepsy structural sequences-HARNESS-MRI protocol. As these sequences are available on most MR scanners, the HARNESS-MRI protocol is generalizable, regardless of the clinical setting and country. The Neuroimaging Task Force also endorses the use of computer-aided image postprocessing methods to provide an objective account of an individual's brain anatomy and pathology. By discussing the breadth and depth of scope of MRI, this report emphasizes the unique role of this noninvasive investigation in the care of people with epilepsy.
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 | 0.043 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".