MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416340965 · doi:10.1002/epd2.70123

Striatal stimulation causing movements mimicking faciobrachial dystonic seizures

2025· article· en· W4416340965 on OpenAlexaff
Kia Gilani, Madeline Fields, Dina Bolden, Matthew S. Davitz, Richard Wennberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEpileptic Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal gangliaPutamenScalpElectroencephalographyEpilepsyTemporal lobeHypermetabolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faciobrachial dystonic seizures (FBDS) are characteristic of anti-LGI1 encephalitis. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FBDS are unknown, with scalp EEG correlates consistent with cortical initiation and basal ganglia hypermetabolism implicating the involvement of subcortical structures. In a patient with non-encephalitic drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy undergoing brain mapping during a stereotactic-EEG investigation, we identified neurophysiologic evidence that lateralized movements similar to FBDS can result from direct striatal activation. Stimulation of putaminal depth electrode contacts resulted in brief contralateral dystonic movements resembling the FBDS seen in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. The evoked movements lagged stimulation initiation and outlasted stimulation, reminiscent of the delay between scalp EEG infraslow activity and FBDS in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. Unlike FBDS in anti-LGI1 encephalitis, no scalp EEG change preceded the stimulation-induced movements. These findings suggest that the putamen may be a part of the symptomatogenic zone for anti-LGI1 encephalitis-related FBDS, and that in the encephalitic scenario transient cortical epileptic discharges are ipsilaterally propagated to the striatum to cause FBDS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpileptic DisordersSame topicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207