MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048265729 · doi:10.1684/epd.2020.1174

MRI essentials in epileptology: a review from the ILAE Imaging Taskforce

2020· review· en· W3048265729 on OpenAlexaff
Irène Wang, Andrea Bernasconi, Boris C. Bernhardt, Hal Blumenfeld, Fernando Cendes, Yotin Chinvarun, Graeme D. Jackson, Victoria L. Morgan, Stefan Rampp, Anna Elisabetta Vaudano, Paolo Federico

Bibliographic record

VenueEpileptic Disorders · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyContext (archaeology)Magnetic resonance imagingMedicineDiffusion MRIMedical physicsReading (process)PsychologyRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a central role in the management and evaluation of patients with epilepsy. It is important that structural MRI scans are optimally acquired and carefully reviewed by trained experts within the context of all available clinical data. The aim of this review is to discuss the essentials of MRI that will be useful to health care providers specialized in epilepsy, as outlined by the competencies and learning objectives of the recently developed ILAE curriculum. This review contains information on basic MRI principles, sequences, field strengths and safety, when to perform and repeat an MRI, epilepsy MRI protocol (HARNESS-MRI) and the basic reading guidelines, and common epileptic pathologies. More advanced topics such as MRI-negative epilepsy, functional MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging are also briefly discussed. Although the available resources can differ markedly across different centers, it is the hope that this review can provide general guidance in the everyday practice of using MRI for patients 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations66
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpileptic DisordersSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207