Contribution of the Brown Location Test to the pre-surgical neuropsychological assessment of temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of memory deficits in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE) can depend on the side of the epileptogenic zone (EZ). Although left mTLE has been consistently associated with impairments in verbal memory, the association between right mTLE and non-verbal memory is less clear, which may be attributable to methodological limitations of existing visuospatial memory tests (e.g., possible use of verbalization strategies, involvement of psychomotor or visuospatial skills, task structure which differs between verbal and non-verbal memory tests). The Brown Location Test (BLT) was developed to evaluate visuospatial memory by addressing such limitations, and displays a good potential value for lateralizing the EZ. To our knowledge, no independent study has been conducted to assess the contribution of the BLT in lateralizing and localizing the EZ among patients undergoing pre-surgical assessment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. This study aims to do so by comparing visuospatial and verbal memory performance of patients according to EZ lateralization (left vs. right) and localization (mesiotemporal vs. non-mesiotemporal). Eighty-nine adult patients with TLE were divided into four groups based on EZ (left mTLE, right mTLE, left non-mTLE, right non-mTLE) and were administered the BLT and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) pre-operatively. Memory performance was associated with sex, education and number of antiseizure medications. Only delayed recognition hits on the RAVLT showed the expected material-specific impairment associated with left mTLE, whereas BLT performance did not differ between groups. Therefore, caution is required when interpreting material-specific memory performances to localize and lateralize the EZ among patients undergoing pre-surgical assessment for drug-resistant epilepsy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".