Reproducibility of<scp>EEG‐MEG</scp>fusion source analysis of interictal spikes: Relevance in presurgical evaluation of epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusion of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) data using maximum entropy on the mean method (MEM-fusion) takes advantage of the complementarities between EEG and MEG to improve localization accuracy. Simulation studies demonstrated MEM-fusion to be robust especially in noisy conditions such as single spike source localizations (SSSL). Our objective was to assess the reliability of SSSL using MEM-fusion on clinical data. We proposed to cluster SSSL results to find the most reliable and consistent source map from the reconstructed sources, the so-called consensus map. Thirty-four types of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) were analyzed from 26 patients with well-defined epileptogenic focus. SSSLs were performed on EEG, MEG, and fusion data and consensus maps were estimated using hierarchical clustering. Qualitative (spike-to-spike reproducibility rate, SSR) and quantitative (localization error and spatial dispersion) assessments were performed using the epileptogenic focus as clinical reference. Fusion SSSL provided significantly better results than EEG or MEG alone. Fusion found at least one cluster concordant with the clinical reference in all cases. This concordant cluster was always the one involving the highest number of spikes. Fusion yielded highest reproducibility (SSR EEG = 55%, MEG = 71%, fusion = 90%) and lowest localization error. Also, using only few channels from either modality (21EEG + 272MEG or 54EEG + 25MEG) was sufficient to reach accurate fusion. MEM-fusion with consensus map approach provides an objective way of finding the most reliable and concordant generators of IEDs. We, therefore, suggest the pertinence of SSSL using MEM-fusion as a valuable clinical tool for presurgical evaluation of epilepsy.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".