MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116978745 · doi:10.1159/000548513

Anterior versus Posterior: Evolving Evidence in Callosotomy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

2025· article· en· W7116978745 on OpenAlex
Karim Mithani, George M. Ibrahim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisconnectionCorpus callosumCorpus callosotomyEpilepsy surgeryEpilepsySpleniumPerspective (graphical)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor,We thank Prof. Martins et al. [1] for their thoughtful and articulate comments on our recent review and clinical decision-making framework on contemporary neurosurgical approaches for generalized drug-resistant epilepsy [2]. Their perspective in support of selective posterior corpus callosotomy (CC) is well received, and we agree that mounting evidence supports its potential role as a safe and effective option for controlling drop attacks.Historically, selective anterior CC was preferred based on the hypothesis that sectioning posterior callosal fibers might cause greater disruption of interhemispheric motor and sensory integration, leading to disconnection syndromes [3, 4]. As discussed in our review and reiterated by Prof Martins and colleagues, recent decades have seen the emergence of posterior callosotomy, targeting the splenium, isthmus, and posterior body of the corpus callosum in select patients with generalized DRE [5‒7]. Multiple large series have demonstrated significant reductions in drop attacks following selective posterior CC, with minimal cognitive morbidity [5, 7]. These benefits may reflect complete disruption of transcallosal fibers connecting sensorimotor regions compared to selective anterior CC [7]. We fully agree with our colleagues that comparative studies would be useful to delineate the relative efficacy and safety profiles of selective anterior versus posterior CC for the treatment of generalized DRE.We also suspect that a “one size fits all” – anterior versus posterior – approach may leave little room for nuance in surgical decision-making. Certain patients may benefit from one approach over another (or often from a complete callostomy). Advances in functional brain mapping may inform individualized risk profiles and guide personalized treatment decisions. To this end, tractography and functional MRI have shown early promise in mapping functionally significant connections within the corpus callosum on an individualized basis [8‒12]. Such technological advances may facilitate more tailored, patient-specific intervention that could minimize neurocognitive risk.In conclusion, we welcome the insightful additions of Prof. Martins and colleagues, which highlight the growing recognition of selective posterior callosotomy as an important addition to the surgical armamentarium for generalized drug-resistant epilepsy. We anticipate that ongoing comparative studies, combined with advanced brain mapping technologies, will prove effective in determining ideal surgical treatments for individual patients.K.M. has no conflicts of interest to disclose. G.M.I. receives consulting fees from Medtronic Inc. and also reports a relationship with Synergia Inc. and LivaNova Inc. that includes consulting and advisory fees and investigator-initiated funding. These organizations played no role in any part of the current work.The authors declare no funding was obtained or used for this study.K.M. and G.M.I. drafted and revised the manuscript.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · 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