Contributions of EEG-fMRI to Assessing the Epileptogenicity of Focal Cortical Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To examine the ability of the BOLD response to EEG spikes to assess the epileptogenicity of the lesion in patients with focal cortical dysplasia (FCD). Method. Patients with focal epilepsy and FCD who underwent 3T EEG-fMRI from 2006 to 2010 were included. Diagnosis of FCD was based on neuroradiology (MRI+), or histopathology in MRI-negative cases (MRI-). Patients underwent 120 min EEG-fMRI recording session. Spikes similar to those recorded outside the scanner were marked in the filtered EEG. The lesion (in MRI+) or the removed cortex (in MRI-) was marked on the anatomical T1 sequence, blindly to the BOLD response, after reviewing the FLAIR images. For each BOLD response we assessed the concordance with the spike field and with the lesion in MRI+ or the removed cortex in MRI-. BOLD responses were considered “concordant” if the maximal t-value was inside the marking. Follow-up after resection was used as gold-standard. Results. Twenty patients were included (13 MRI+, 7 MRI-), but in seven the EEG was not active or there were artifacts during acquisition. In all 13 studied patients, at least one BOLD response was concordant with the spike field; in 9/13 (69%) at least one BOLD response was concordant with the lesion: in 6/7 (86%) MRI+ and in 3/6 (50%) MRI- patients. Conclusions. Our study shows a high level of concordance between FCD and BOLD response. This data could provide useful information especially for MRI negative patients. Moreover, it shows in almost all FCD patients, a metabolic involvement of remote cortical or subcortical structures, corroborating the concept of epileptic network.
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 | 0.001 | 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".