Roles of fMRI and Wada tests in the presurgical evaluation of language functions in temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical treatment of pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) carries risks for language function that can significantly affect the quality of life. Predicting the risks of decline in language functions before surgery is, consequently, just as important as predicting the chances of becoming seizure-free. The intracarotid amobarbital test, generally known as the Wada test (WT), has been traditionally used to determine language lateralization and to estimate their potential decline after surgery. However, the test is invasive and it does not localize the language functions. Therefore, other noninvasive methods have been proposed, of which functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) has the greatest potential. Functional MRI allows localization of language areas. It has good concordance with the WT for language lateralization, and it is of predictive value for postsurgical naming outcomes. Consequently, fMRI has progressively replaced WT for presurgical language evaluation. The objective of this manuscript is to review the most relevant aspects of language functions in TLE and the current role of fMRI and WT in the presurgical evaluation of language. First, we will provide context by revising the language network distribution and the effects of TLE on them. Then, we will assess the functional outcomes following various forms of TLE surgery and measures to reduce postoperative language decline. Finally, we will discuss the current indications for WT and fMRI and the potential usefulness of the resting-state fMRI technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".