MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414457967 · doi:10.1002/epd2.70105

Seminars in epileptology: Presurgical epilepsy evaluation

2025· review· en· W4414457967 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Schuele, Robyn M. Busch, Birgit Frauscher, Vadym Gnatkovsky, Hajo M. Hamer, Lara Jehi, Andrés M. Kanner, Georgia Ramantani, Theodor Rüber, Andreas Schulze‐Bonhage, Rainer Surges, Lara Wadi

Bibliographic record

VenueEpileptic Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryNeuropsychologyRehabilitationMEDLINENeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All patients with drug-resistant seizures benefit from a comprehensive evaluation to confirm their seizure diagnosis and explore surgical treatment options. This seminar in epileptology discusses advancements in the field and provides specific didactic material to create an active working knowledge for the care of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy. The article reviews indications for a presurgical evaluation and the importance and benefits of early surgical intervention. Advancements in diagnostic techniques in the presurgical evaluation, including video-EEG monitoring, imaging, neuropsychological testing, and patient selection for invasive monitoring, are covered. An overview of common pathologies underlying surgical epilepsy syndromes and their MRI correlates is provided. A modern multimodal work-up allows individualized risk and benefit estimation and a personalized approach to surgical decision-making. The review concludes with a comprehensive discussion of postsurgical management, common complications, and rehabilitation after epilepsy surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpileptic DisordersSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207