Spatial correlation of hemodynamic changes related to interictal epileptic discharges with electric and magnetic source imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal changes at the time of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) identify their associated vascular/hemodynamic responses. BOLD activations and deactivations can be found within the epileptogenic zone but also at a distance. Source imaging identifies electric (ESI) and magnetic (MSI) sources of IEDs, with the advantage of a higher temporal resolution. Therefore, the objective of our study was to evaluate the spatial concordance between ESI/MSI and BOLD responses for similar IEDs. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with similar IEDs in simultaneous electroencephalogram/functional magnetic resonance imaging (EEG/fMRI) and in simultaneous EEG/magnetoencephalogram (MEG) recordings were studied. IEDs in EEG/fMRI acquisition were analyzed in an event-related paradigm within a general linear model (GLM). ESI/MSI of averaged IEDs was performed using the Maximum Entropy on the Mean. We assessed the spatial concordance between ESI/MSI and clusters of BOLD activations/deactivations with surface-based metrics. RESULTS: ESI/MSI were concordant with one BOLD cluster for 20/21 patients (concordance with activation: 14/21 patients, deactivation: 6/21 patients, no concordance: 1/21 patients; concordance with MSI only: 3/21, ESI only: 2/21). These BOLD clusters exhibited in 19/20 cases the most significant voxel. BOLD clusters that were spatially concordant with ESI/MSI were concordant with IEDs from invasive recordings in 8/11 patients (activations: 5/8, deactivations: 3/8). CONCLUSION: As the results of BOLD, ESI and MSI are often concordant, they reinforce our confidence in all of them. ESI and MSI confirm the most significant BOLD cluster within BOLD maps, emphasizing the importance of these clusters for the definition of the epileptic focus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".