Strong coupling between slow oscillations and wide fast ripples in children with epileptic spasms: Investigation of modulation index and occurrence rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Objective Epileptic spasms (ES) often become drug‐resistant. To reveal the electrophysiological difference between children withES(ES+) and withoutES(ES−), we compared the occurrence rate (OR) of high‐frequency oscillations (HFOs) and the modulation index (MI) of coupling between slow and fast oscillations. InES+, we hypothesized that (1) pathologicalHFOs are more widely distributed and (2) slow oscillations show stronger coupling with pathologicalHFOs than inES−. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 24 children with drug‐resistant multilobar onset epilepsy, who underwent intracranial video electroencephalography prior to multilobar resections. We measured theORofHFOs and determined the electrodes with a high rate ofHFOs by cluster analysis. We calculatedMI, which reflects the degree of coupling betweenHFO(ripple/fast ripple [FR]) amplitude and 5 different frequency bands of delta and theta activities (0.5‐1 Hz, 1‐2 Hz, 2‐3 Hz, 3‐4 Hz, 4‐8 Hz). Results InES+ (n = 10), theOR(FRs), the number of electrodes with high‐rateFRs, and theMI(FRs & 3‐4 Hz)in all electrodes were significantly higher than inES− (n = 14). In both theES+ andES− groups,MI(ripples/FRs & 3‐4 Hz)was the highest among the 5 frequency bands. Within the good seizure outcome group, theOR(FRs)and theMI(FRs & 3‐4 Hz)in the resected area inES+ were significantly higher than inES− (OR[FRs],P= .04;MI[FRs & 3‐4 Hz],P= .04). Significance InES+, the larger number of high‐rateFRelectrodes indicates more widespread epileptogenicity than inES−. High values ofOR(FRs)andMI(FRs & 3‐4 Hz)inES+ compared toES− are a signature of the severity of epileptogenicity. We proved thatES+ children who achieved seizure freedom following multilobar resections exhibited strong coupling between slow oscillations andFRs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".