MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104930442 · doi:10.1002/ana.22548

High‐frequency oscillations as a new biomarker in epilepsy

2011· review· en· W2104930442 on OpenAlexafffund
Maeike Zijlmans, Přemysl Jiruška, Rina Zelmann, Frans S. S. Leijten, John G. R. Jefferys, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpilepsyBiomarkerMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery that electroencephalography (EEG) contains useful information at frequencies above the traditional 80Hz limit has had a profound impact on our understanding of brain function. In epilepsy, high-frequency oscillations (HFOs, >80Hz) have proven particularly important and useful. This literature review describes the morphology, clinical meaning, and pathophysiology of epileptic HFOs. To record HFOs, the intracranial EEG needs to be sampled at least at 2,000Hz. The oscillatory events can be visualized by applying a high-pass filter and increasing the time and amplitude scales, or EEG time-frequency maps can show the amount of high-frequency activity. HFOs appear excellent markers for the epileptogenic zone. In patients with focal epilepsy who can benefit from surgery, invasive EEG is often required to identify the epileptic cortex, but current information is sometimes inadequate. Removal of brain tissue generating HFOs has been related to better postsurgical outcome than removing the seizure onset zone, indicating that HFOs may mark cortex that needs to be removed to achieve seizure control. The pathophysiology of epileptic HFOs is challenging, probably involving populations of neurons firing asynchronously. They differ from physiological HFOs in not being paced by rhythmic inhibitory activity and in their possible origin from population spikes. Their link to the epileptogenic zone argues that their study will teach us much about the pathophysiology of epileptogenesis and ictogenesis. HFOs show promise for improving surgical outcome and accelerating intracranial EEG investigations. Their potential needs to be assessed by future research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations527
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207