618 Widespread, depth-dependent microstructural alterations in the cortex of children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy: a quantitative T1 and T2 mapping study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives We assessed cortical changes in children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy using surface-based T1 and T2 relaxometry (qT1 and qT2), to probe alterations in tissue-microstructure, and their relationship to clinical parameters. Methods Data Acquisition 89 children were scanned unsedated on a 3T Achieva-TX scanner (Philips Healthcare) – 43 with drug-resistant focal epilepsy [mean age=12yrs] and 46 healthy controls [mean age=11.5yrs] (See table 1 for acquisition parameters). All images were motion-corrected.¹ Analysis Surface-reconstruction: FLAIR and T1w images were analysed to reconstruct white/grey matter (WM/GM) and pial surfaces.² These surfaces were used to compute equi-volume cortical surface depths by sampling the surface vertices in steps of 20% of cortical volume (0%: WM/GM, 100%: pial surface). qT1 and qT2 surface-mapping: qT1 and qT2 images³ were rigidly co-registered to their corresponding MPRAGE volume, smoothed, and projected to each depth. Group differences in qT1 and qT2: Surface outputs from the HCP structural pipeline are left-right symmetrical, therefore we flipped qT1 and qT2 surface maps of patients with right hemispheric focus and analysed them with left focus patients. Group-wise alterations at each cortical depth were tested.4 Additionally, vertex-wise qT1 and qT2 values at 20% depth were subtracted from those at 80% depth, and group-differences in cortical gradients were tested as an index of intracortical organisation. Associations between qT1 and qT2 changes in patients and disease duration/number of seizures per year were assessed. Age, sex, cortical thickness and curvature were included as covariates.5 6 TFCE was employed as test statistic, and FWE-correction was applied across modalities and contrasts. Results Figure 2A displays depth-wise group differences in qT1 and qT2. Bilateral qT2 increases and ipsilateral qT1 increases were detected in patients in the outermost cortical depths. The detected changes were not associated with clinical variables. Figure 2B displays group differences in qT1 and qT2 cortical gradients. We detected steeper gradients in patients, with increasingly high qT1 and qT2 in the outermost cortical depths bilaterally. The detected changes were not associated with clinical variables. Conclusions We report the presence of widespread, depth-mediated qT1 and qT2 increases in children with focal epilepsy. Changes appear unrelated to focus laterality, and likely represent gliosis, myelin and iron changes, oedema-associated free-water increases, or a combination of these.7 Based on the typically shorter disease duration in children, and on the lack of associations with disease-severity measures, such changes may represent antecedent neurobiological alterations, rather than the cumulative effect of seizure-activity or medication side-effects. References Cordero-Grande L, et al. Motion-corrected MRI with DISORDER: Distributed and incoherent sample orders for reconstruction deblurring using encoding redundancy. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2020;84:713–726. Glasser MF, et al. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage 2013;80:105–124. Teixeira RPAG, Malik SJ, Hajnal JV. Joint system relaxometry (JSR) and Crámer-Rao lower bound optimization of sequence parameters: A framework for enhanced precision of DESPOT T1 and T2 estimation. Magn Reson Med 2018;79:234–245. Winkler AM, Webster MA, Brooks JC, Tracey I, Smith SM, Nichols TE. Non-parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging. Human Brain Mapping. 2016;37(4):1486–1511. doi:10.1002/hbm.23115 Galovic M, et al. Resective surgery prevents progressive cortical thinning in temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain 2020;143:3262–3272. Annese J, Pitiot A, Dinov ID, Toga AW. A myelo-architectonic method for the structural classification of cortical areas. NeuroImage 2004;21:15–26. Cercignani M, Dowell NG, Tofts PS. Quantitative MRI of the Brain: Principles of Physical Measurement, Second edition. (CRC Press, 2018).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».