MEG–EEG Information Fusion and Electromagnetic Source Imaging: From Theory to Clinical Application in Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop and quantitatively assess whether fusion of EEG and MEG (MEEG) data within the maximum entropy on the mean (MEM) framework increases the spatial accuracy of source localization, by yielding better recovery of the spatial extent and propagation pathway of the underlying generators of inter-ictal epileptic discharges (IEDs). The key element in this study is the integration of the complementary information from EEG and MEG data within the MEM framework. MEEG was compared with EEG and MEG when localizing single transient IEDs. The fusion approach was evaluated using realistic simulation models involving one or two spatially extended sources mimicking propagation patterns of IEDs. We also assessed the impact of the number of EEG electrodes required for an efficient EEG-MEG fusion. MEM was compared with minimum norm estimate, dynamic statistical parametric mapping, and standardized low-resolution electromagnetic tomography. The fusion approach was finally assessed on real epileptic data recorded from two patients showing IEDs simultaneously in EEG and MEG. Overall the localization of MEEG data using MEM provided better recovery of the source spatial extent, more sensitivity to the source depth and more accurate detection of the onset and propagation of IEDs than EEG or MEG alone. MEM was more accurate than the other methods. MEEG proved more robust than EEG and MEG for single IED localization in low signal-to-noise ratio conditions. We also showed that only few EEG electrodes are required to bring additional relevant information to MEG during MEM fusion.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".