A minority of patients with functional seizures have abnormalities on neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functional seizures often are managed incorrectly as a diagnosis of exclusion. However, a significant minority of patients with functional seizures may have abnormalities on neuroimaging that typically are associated with epilepsy, leading to diagnostic confusion. We evaluated the rate of epilepsy-associated findings on MRI, FDG-PET, and CT in patients with functional seizures. METHODS: We studied radiologists' reports from neuroimages at our comprehensive epilepsy center from a consecutive series of patients diagnosed with functional seizures without comorbid epilepsy from 2006 to 2019. We summarized the MRI, FDG-PET, and CT results as follows: within normal limits, incidental findings, unrelated findings, non-specific abnormalities, post-operative study, epilepsy risk factors (ERF), borderline epilepsy-associated findings (EAF), and definitive EAF. RESULTS: Of the 256 MRIs, 23% demonstrated ERF (5%), borderline EAF (8%), or definitive EAF (10%). The most common EAF was hippocampal sclerosis, with the majority of borderline EAF comprising hippocampal atrophy without T2 hyperintensity or vice versa. Of the 87 FDG-PETs, 26% demonstrated borderline EAF (17%) or definitive EAF (8%). Epilepsy-associated findings primarily included focal hypometabolism, especially of the temporal lobes, with borderline findings including subtle or questionable hypometabolism. Of the 51 CTs, only 2% had definitive EAF. SIGNIFICANCE: This large case series provides further evidence that, while uncommon, EAF are seen in patients with functional seizures. A significant portion of these abnormal findings are borderline. The moderately high rate of these abnormalities may represent framing bias from the indication of the study being "seizures," the relative subtlety of EAF, or effects of antiseizure medications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".