MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138272091 · doi:10.3171/2020.9.jns202900

Penfield, focal microgyria, and epilepsy

2021· article· en· W3138272091 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Richard Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilder Penfield (1891-1976) is widely regarded as a dominant figure in 20th century neurobiology for his singular contributions to the structure-function relationship of the brain, his discovery of the language function of the supplementary motor area, the discovery (with Herbert Jasper and Brenda Milner) of the anatomy of recall, and his pioneering work in the surgical treatment of focal epilepsy. But another of his significant discoveries has escaped notice: the recognition that focal microgyria can generate epileptic seizures, and that these can be treated surgically. Penfield discussed the case of the patient through which this discovery was made during his Shattuck Lecture to the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1939. As Penfield gave only a fragmentary account of this case, the patient's chart was retrieved from the Montreal Neurological Institute archives, and his operative note and brain map, intraoperative photographs, and the histopathological and cytological examinations of the resected specimen were reviewed. Based on these primary sources, this paper provides a complete, detailed account of the first case in which microgyria was recognized as a cause of focal epilepsy, which was successfully treated surgically.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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