MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075904808 · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1265539

Dynamic analysis of absence seizures in humans: all the same but all different

2010· article· en· W2075904808 on OpenAlexaff
Friederike Moeller, Pierre LeVan, Hiltrud Muhle, Ulrich Stephani, François Dubeau, Michael Siniatchkin, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropediatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThalamusIctalMedicineNeuroscienceEpilepsyElectroencephalographyDefault mode networkCaudate nucleusSpike-and-waveNeuroimagingAudiologyPsychiatryFunctional connectivityPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Absences are characterized by an abrupt onset and end of generalized 3–4Hz spike and wave discharges (GSW), accompanied by unresponsiveness. Although previous EEG-fMRI studies showed that thalamus, default mode areas and caudate nuclei are involved in absence seizures, the contribution of these regions throughout the ictal evolution of absences remains unclear. Furthermore animal models provide evidence that absences are initiated by a cortical focus with a secondary involvement of the thalamus. The aim of this study was to investigate dynamic changes during absences. Methods: Seventeen absences from 9 patients with absence epilepsy and classical pattern of 3–4Hz GSW during EEG-fMRI recording were included in the study. The absences were studied in a sliding window analysis, providing a temporal sequence of BOLD response maps. Results: Thalamic activation was found in 16 absences (94%), deactivation in default mode areas in 15 (88%), deactivation of the caudate nuclei in 10 (59%) and cortical activation in patient specific areas in 10 (59%) of the absences. Cortical activations and deactivations in default mode areas and caudate nucleus tended to occur earlier than thalamic responses. Discussion: Like a fingerprint, patient-specific BOLD signal changes were remarkably consistent in space and time across different absences of one patient but were quite different from patient to patient, despite having similar EEG pattern and clinical semiology. Early frontal activations could support the cortical focus theory, but with an addition: this early activation is patient specific.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropediatricsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207