Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy: A comparison with equivalent current dipole method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) is clinically useful in the presurgical workup of epilepsy patients. It is usually obtained by equivalent current dipole (ECD) which localizes a point source and is the only inverse solution approved by clinical guidelines. In contrast, magnetic source imaging using distributed methods (dMSI) provides maps of the location and the extent of the generators, but its yield has not been clinically validated. We systematically compared ECD versus dMSI performed using coherent Maximum Entropy on the Mean (cMEM), a method sensitive to the spatial extent of the generators. METHODS: 340 source localizations of IEDs derived from 49 focal epilepsy patients with foci well-defined through intracranial EEG, MRI lesions, and surgery were analyzed. The comparison was based on the assessment of the sublobar concordance with the focus and of the distance between the source and the focus. RESULTS: dMSI sublobar concordance was significantly higher than ECD (81% vs 69%, P < 0.001), especially for extratemporal lobe sources (dMSI = 84%; ECD = 67%, P < 0.001) and for seizure free patients (dMSI = 83%; ECD = 70%, P < 0.001). The median distance from the focus was 4.88 mm for ECD and 3.44 mm for dMSI (P < 0.001). ECD dipoles were often wrongly localized in deep brain regions. CONCLUSIONS: dMSI using cMEM exhibited better accuracy. dMSI also offered the advantage of recovering more realistic maps of the generator, which could be exploited for neuronavigation aimed at targeting invasive EEG and surgical resection. Therefore, dMSI may be preferred to ECD in clinical practice. Hum Brain Mapp 39:218-231, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".