P.013 Stereo-encephalographic presurgical evaluation of temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Drug resistant epilepsy is present in nearly 30% of patients. Resection of the epileptogenic zone has been found to be the most effective in achieving seizure freedom. The study of temporal lobe epilepsy for surgical treatment is extensive and complex. It involves a multidisciplinary team in decision-making with initial non-invasive studies (Phase I), providing 70% of required information to elaborate a hypothesis and treatment plans. Select cases present more complexity involving bilateral clinical or electrographic manifestations, have contradicting information or may involve deeper structures as a part of the epileptogenic zone. Methods: A review of the literature was done with key terms such as: “temporal lobe epilepsy”and “SEEG”and “intracranial EEG”, “epilepsy surgery”, un Pubmed, EMBASE, Medlink and Scielo. Most cutting edge, controversial subjects surrounding this field were considered. Results: In this comprehensive review, we explore the indications, usefulness, discoveries in interictal and ictal findings, pitfalls, and advances in the science of presurgical stereo-encephalography for temporal lobe epilepsy. Conclusions: Intracranial recording follows original concepts since its development by Bancaud and Talairach, but great advances have been made in the field. Stereo-electroencephalography is a growing field of study, treatment and establishment of seizure pattern complexities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".