MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150041178 · doi:10.1111/epi.13124

Subcortical (thalamic) automated seizure detection: A new option for contingent therapy delivery

2015· article· en· W2150041178 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Osorio, Mark G. Frei, Andrés M. Lozano, Richard Wennberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThalamusIctalElectroencephalographyEpilepsyNeuroscienceScalpPsychologyStereoelectroencephalographyAnesthesiaMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feasibility of automated detection of cortical-onset epileptic seizures from subcortical structures such as the thalamus was investigated via simultaneous recording of electroencephalography (EEG) and anterior and centromedian thalamic nuclei electrical signals (electrothalamography) in nine subjects with pharmacoresistant seizures admitted to an epilepsy monitoring unit after deep brain stimulating electrode implantation. Thalamic electrical signals were analyzed using a validated seizure detection algorithm, and times of seizure onset and termination were compared to those determined through visual analysis of video-EEG. Ictal activity was recorded from the scalp and thalamic nuclei in three subjects who had seizures during the 3-4-day recording period. In the majority of seizures, ictal activity in the thalamic nuclei preceded electrographic onset as determined from the EEG or clinical onset as determined from behavioral observations. Interictal epileptiform discharges were also recorded from the thalamus and in certain instances had no scalp representation. Subcortical/thalamic detection of cortical-onset seizures is feasible. This approach would enable contingent therapy delivery and may be particularly valuable for subjects with multiple or difficult-to-localize epileptogenic regions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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