Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rolandic epileptiform discharges with tangential dipole (T-dipole) configurations are associated with favorable prognosis. Whether the same is true for T-dipole epileptiform discharges in other brain regions is less established and is the objective of this study. METHODS: Over 20 years, patients with epileptiform discharges were identified as follows: frontal (F = 176), temporal (T = 196), central (C = 201), parietal (P = 120), and occipital (O = 205). T-dipoles were documented. Clinical features of children with and without T-dipole were compared both regardless of brain region and separately for each brain region. RESULTS: The prevalence of T-dipoles was 232/898 (25.8%) overall and within different regions as follows: T = 104 (53.1%), O = 51 (24.9%), P = 23 (19.2%), C = 35 (17.4%), and F = 19 (10.8%). Most had epilepsy (T-dipole: 193 [83.2%] and nondipole: 532 [79.9%]). Regardless of region, T-dipole was associated with less drug-resistant epilepsy (11 [4.7%] vs. 202 [30.3%], P < 0.001), developmental delay (57 [24.6%] vs. 436 [51.0%], P < 0.001), school performance difficulties (SPD) (101 [43.5%] vs. 410 [61.6%], P < 0.001), autism (30 [12.9%] vs. 127 [19.1%], P = 0.037), and abnormal examination (28 [12.1%] vs. 257 [38.6%], P < 0.001]). Within different brain regions, on logistic regression, T-dipole was associated with lower odds of drug-resistant epilepsy (F, T, C, P, and O), developmental delay (F, T, C, and P), SPD (F, T, and C), autism (F and T), abnormal examination (F, T, C, and O), and abnormal neuroimaging (T, C, P, and O). CONCLUSIONS: On routine EEG analysis, focal epileptiform discharges with T-dipoles, regardless of brain region, are associated with a more favorable clinical course.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".