MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2224348923 · doi:10.1109/embc.2015.7319903

Identification of brain regions of interest for epilepsy surgery planning using support vector machines

2015· article· en· W2224348923 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Dian, Sinisa Colic, Yotin Chinvarun, Peter L. Carlen, Berj L. Bardakjian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpilepsyComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Epilepsy surgeryResectionElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineClass (philosophy)ScalabilitySurgical planningMachine learningMedicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients with intractable epilepsy, surgical resection is a promising treatment; however, post surgical seizure freedom is contingent upon accurate identification of the seizure onset zone (SOZ). Identification of the SOZ in extratemporal epilepsy requires invasive intracranial EEG (iEEG) recordings as well as resource intensive and subjective analysis by epileptologists. Expert inspection yields inconsistent localization of the SOZ which leads to comparatively poor post surgical outcomes for patients. This study employs recordings from 6 patients undergoing resection surgery in order to develop an automated and scalable system for identifying regions of interest (ROIs). Leveraging machine learning techniques and features used for seizure detection, a classification system was trained and tested on patients with Engel class I to class IV outcomes, demonstrating superior performance in the class I patients. Further, classification using features based upon both high frequency and low frequency oscillations was best able to identify channels suited for resection. This study demonstrates a novel approach to ROI identification and provides a path for developing tools to improve outcomes in epilepsy surgery.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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