PMC:6610391 / 4574-5499 JSONTXT

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"31062601-20196795-28638756","span":{"begin":319,"end":321},"obj":"20196795"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"What is the best way to evaluate for etiology? When epilepsy and seizure classifications were being revised, the concept of “cryptogenic” epilepsy was appropriately challenged. Previously, cryptogenic epilepsy had been loosely defined as “presumed symptomatic,” but primarily meant no lesion identified on neuroimaging.8 We now understand that epilepsy etiology goes well beyond neuroimaging and family history. The prospective database of the National Infantile Spasms Consortium (NISC) was able to identify the highest yield, most cost-effective studies. Of the cases who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with seizure protocol, a causal abnormality was identified in 40.9%, making this the highest yield test. In those without a structural cause, the next highest yield was genetic testing; combining comparative genomic hybridization array (aCGH) and epilepsy gene panel provided a definitive diagnosis in \u003e40%.9"}

{"project":"0_colil","denotations":[{"id":"31062601-20196795-489","span":{"begin":319,"end":320},"obj":"20196795"},{"id":"31062601-25779538-490","span":{"begin":924,"end":925},"obj":"25779538"}],"text":"What is the best way to evaluate for etiology? When epilepsy and seizure classifications were being revised, the concept of “cryptogenic” epilepsy was appropriately challenged. Previously, cryptogenic epilepsy had been loosely defined as “presumed symptomatic,” but primarily meant no lesion identified on neuroimaging.8 We now understand that epilepsy etiology goes well beyond neuroimaging and family history. The prospective database of the National Infantile Spasms Consortium (NISC) was able to identify the highest yield, most cost-effective studies. Of the cases who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with seizure protocol, a causal abnormality was identified in 40.9%, making this the highest yield test. In those without a structural cause, the next highest yield was genetic testing; combining comparative genomic hybridization array (aCGH) and epilepsy gene panel provided a definitive diagnosis in \u003e40%.9"}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"31062601-20196795-28638756","span":{"begin":319,"end":320},"obj":"20196795"},{"id":"31062601-25779538-28638757","span":{"begin":924,"end":925},"obj":"25779538"}],"text":"What is the best way to evaluate for etiology? When epilepsy and seizure classifications were being revised, the concept of “cryptogenic” epilepsy was appropriately challenged. Previously, cryptogenic epilepsy had been loosely defined as “presumed symptomatic,” but primarily meant no lesion identified on neuroimaging.8 We now understand that epilepsy etiology goes well beyond neuroimaging and family history. The prospective database of the National Infantile Spasms Consortium (NISC) was able to identify the highest yield, most cost-effective studies. Of the cases who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with seizure protocol, a causal abnormality was identified in 40.9%, making this the highest yield test. In those without a structural cause, the next highest yield was genetic testing; combining comparative genomic hybridization array (aCGH) and epilepsy gene panel provided a definitive diagnosis in \u003e40%.9"}