Difference between revisions of "2° Clinical case: Pineal Cavernoma"

2° Clinical case: Pineal Cavernoma (view source)

986 bytes removed , 2 years ago

no edit summary

Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, member, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator

11,564

edits

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 {{Q2|We could, paradoxically, have the same rationale in the neurological context
 <math>\Im_n </math> ?|and it is precisely here that the contexts conflict or rather the results may not be so decisive}}
-In the neurological context we will therefore have the following sentences and statements to which we give a numerical value to facilitate the discussion, namely  <math>\gamma_n=[0|1]</math> where the <math>\gamma_n=0</math> indicate ‘normality’ and <math>\gamma_n=1</math> 'Abnormality’  and therefore positivity of the report :
-<math>\gamma_1=</math> Presence and symmetry of the motor evoked potentials of the trigeminal roots in Figure 5,   <math>\gamma_0=0\longrightarrow</math>  Normality, negativity of the report
-<math>\gamma_2=</math>  Presence of the jaw jerk with relative amplitude asymmetry in Figure 6   <math>\gamma_2=1\longrightarrow</math>  Abnormality, negativity of the report* (the * was inserted to note an ambiguity in the report that we will describe in detail in the clinical discussion
-<math>\gamma_1=</math>  Electrical silent period and contextual symmetry Figure 7,   <math>\gamma_3=0\longrightarrow</math> Normality, negativity of the report