Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Diagnostic Utility of Wada Memory Asymmetries: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Likelihood Ratio Characterization

  • David W. Loring(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Stephen C. Bowden
    ,
  • Gregory P. Lee
    ,
  • Kimford J. Meador
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

The authors used logistic regression, dichotomous and multiple level likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to examine Wada Memory Asymmetries (WMAs) in 324 patients who subsequently underwent temporal lobe (TL) surgery (left TL surgery = 172; right TL surgery = 152) using the Medical College of Georgia Wada protocol. Logistic regression correctly classified 84% of left TL patients and 77% of right TL patients using WMA. Corresponding dichotomous likelihood ratios (LRs) were: LR+ = 3.64; LR- = 0.21. The area under the curve using ROC was similarly highly significant (.886, standard error = .018, p < .001). When classifying patients using multiple level LRs, 40 left TL patients (23.3%) obtained asymmetry scores greater than +4, whereas no right TL patients obtained asymmetry scores in this range. No left TL patients obtained a WMA of -8 or less, although 12 right TL patients (7.9%) obtained a difference score of -8. Multiple level LRs indicate impressive diagnostic sensitivity for certain WMA ranges, greatly increasing the probability of undergoing either left or right TL surgery depending on WMA magnitude.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 687-693 (7 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Neuropsychology (Volume 23, Issue 6)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 11/2009

Publication status

Published - 11/2009

ISSN

0894-4105

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 72149110326
  • PubMed: 19899827

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
citations
13
SciVal
FWCI
0.38
SciVal
Author count
4
SciVal
Paper percentile
67
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.25
Fractional count
3
Fractional count
0.75
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
41
Citation count
14