MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282962604 · doi:10.1159/000525262

The Role of MRI in the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy

2022· review· en· W4282962604 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Bernasconi, Neda Bernasconi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingEpilepsyMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineEpilepsy surgeryNeuroscienceIntensive care medicineRadiologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a prevalent chronic condition affecting about 50 million people worldwide. A third of patients with focal epilepsy suffer from seizures unresponsive to medication. Uncontrolled seizures damage the brain, are associated with cognitive decline, and have negative impact on well-being. For these patients, the surgical resection of the brain region that gives rise to seizures is the most effective treatment. SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a central role in detecting epileptogenic brain lesions. In this review, we critically discuss advances in neuroimaging acquisition, analytical post-acquisition techniques, and machine leaning methods for the detection of epileptogenic lesions, prediction of clinical outcomes, and identification of disease subtypes. KEY MESSAGE: MRI is a mandatory investigation for diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy, particularly when surgery is being considered. Continuous progress in imaging techniques, combined with machine learning, will continue to push the boundaries of lesion visibility and provide increasingly precise predictors of clinical outcomes. Current efforts aiming at strengthening the competences of epileptologists in neuroimaging will ultimately reduce the need for invasive diagnostics.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207