Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epilepsy surgery is the therapy of choice for 30-40% of people with focal drug-resistant epilepsy. Currently only ∼60% of well selected patients become postsurgically seizure-free underlining the need for better tools to identify the epileptogenic zone. This article reviews the latest neurophysiological advances for EZ localization with emphasis on ictal EZ identification, interictal EZ markers, and noninvasive neurophysiological mapping procedures. RECENT FINDINGS: We will review methods for computerized EZ assessment, summarize computational network approaches for outcome prediction and individualized surgical planning. We will discuss electrical stimulation as an option to reduce the time needed for presurgical work-up. We will summarize recent research regarding high-frequency oscillations, connectivity measures, and combinations of multiple markers using machine learning. This latter was shown to outperform single markers. The role of NREM sleep for best identification of the EZ interictally will be discussed. We will summarize recent large-scale studies using electrical or magnetic source imaging for clinical decision-making. SUMMARY: New approaches based on technical advancements paired with artificial intelligence are on the horizon for better EZ identification. They are ultimately expected to result in a more efficient, less invasive, and less time-demanding presurgical investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".