MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975441602 · doi:10.3171/2019.4.jns1912

Operculoinsular cortectomy for refractory epilepsy. Part 1: Is it effective?

2019· article· en· W2975441602 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Bouthillier, Alexander G. Weil, Laurence Martineau, Laurent Létourneau‐Guillon, Dang Khoa Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCortical dysplasiaEpilepsyPolymicrogyriaSemiologyEpilepsy surgeryTemporal lobeRefractory (planetary science)SurgeryHemimegalencephalyRetrospective cohort studyCentral nervous system diseasePediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patients with refractory epilepsy of operculoinsular origin are often denied potentially effective surgical treatment with operculoinsular cortectomy (also termed operculoinsulectomy) because of feared complications and the paucity of surgical series with a significant number of cases documenting seizure control outcome. The goal of this study was to document seizure control outcome after operculoinsular cortectomy in a group of patients investigated and treated by an epilepsy team with 20 years of experience with this specific technique. METHODS: Clinical, imaging, surgical, and seizure control outcome data of all patients who underwent surgery for refractory epilepsy requiring an operculoinsular cortectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Tumors and progressive encephalitis cases were excluded. Descriptive and uni- and multivariate analyses were done to determine seizure control outcome and predictors. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with 44 operculoinsular cortectomies were studied. Kaplan-Meier estimates of complete seizure freedom (first seizure recurrence excluding auras) for years 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 were 70.2%, 70.2%, 65.0%, and 65.0%, respectively. With patients with more than 1 year of follow-up, seizure control outcome Engel class I was achieved in 76.9% (mean follow-up duration 5.8 years; range 1.25-20 years). With multivariate analysis, unfavorable seizure outcome predictors were frontal lobe-like seizure semiology, shorter duration of epilepsy, and the use of intracranial electrodes for invasive monitoring. Suspected causes of recurrent seizures were sparing of the language cortex part of the focus, subtotal resection of cortical dysplasia/polymicrogyria, bilateral epilepsy, and residual epileptic cortex with normal preoperative MRI studies (insula, frontal lobe, posterior parieto-temporal, orbitofrontal). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of operculoinsular refractory epilepsy is as effective as epilepsy surgeries in other brain areas. These patients should be referred to centers with appropriate experience. A frontal lobe-like seizure semiology should command more sampling with invasive monitoring. Recordings with intracranial electrodes are not always required if the noninvasive investigation is conclusive. The complete resection of the epileptic zone is crucial to achieve good seizure control outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207