Canadian Practice and Recommendations on Functional MRI to Lateralize Language in Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Identifying a patient's dominant language hemisphere is an important evaluation performed prior to epilepsy surgery and is commonly assessed using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). However, the lack of standardization and resultant heterogeneity of fMRI paradigms used in clinical practice limits the ability of cross-center comparisons to be made regarding language laterality results. METHODS: Through surveying Canadian Epilepsy Centres in combination with reviewing supporting literature, current fMRI language lateralization practices for the clinical evaluation of patients with epilepsy were assessed. To encourage standardization of this practice, we outlined a two-part paradigm series that demonstrates widespread acceptance, reliability and accessibility in lateralizing various aspects of language functioning in individuals with average or near-average IQ and normal literacy skills. RESULTS: The collected data confirm a lack of standardization in fMRI laterality assessments leading to clinical heterogeneity in stimulation and control tasks, paradigm design and timing, laterality index calculations, thresholding values and analysis software and technique. We suggest a Sentence Completion (SC) and Word Generation (WG) paradigm series as it was most commonly employed across Canada, demonstrated reliability in lateralizing both receptive and expressive language areas in supporting literature, and could be readily intelligible to an inclusive population. CONCLUSION: Through providing recommendations for a two-part paradigm series, we hope to contribute to the standardization of this practice across Canada to reduce clinical heterogeneity, encourage communicability between institutions, and enhance methodologies for the surgical treatment of epilepsy for the benefit of all individuals living with epilepsy in Canada.
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 | 0.029 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".