MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917843413 · doi:10.1002/ana.25442

High‐Frequency Oscillation Networks and Surgical Outcome in Adult Focal Epilepsy

2019· article· en· W2917843413 on OpenAlexafffund
Karina A. González Otárula, Nicolás von Ellenrieder, Carolina Cuello Oderiz, François Dubeau, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIctalElectroencephalographyRippleEpilepsyOscillation (cell signaling)MedicinePsychologyNeurosciencePhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) show spatiotemporal propagation and assess the relevance of the earliest oscillations in relation to the seizure onset zone (SOZ) and postsurgical outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated the intracerebral electroencephalography (EEG) of patients who became seizure free after subsequent surgery. We marked HFOs during 1 hour of recordings. We calculated the time delay between pairs of channels as the median delay between their HFOs and constructed a time line of the delay of each channel with respect to the earliest channel (first source channel). A network was defined when a temporal order could be established among the channels based on the existence of statistically significant delays. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with good surgical outcome were included. We found ripple networks in all patients, and fast ripple networks in 9. For ripples, first source channels were found in a higher proportion in the SOZ than the rest of the network channels (15 of 27 [56%] versus 93 of 262 [35%]; p = 0.04). For both ripples and fast ripples, first source channels were resected more often that the rest of the network channels (ripples: 13 of 27 [48%] versus 65 of 262 [25%]; p = 0.01; fast ripples: 8 of 9 [89%] versus 17 of 40 [43%]; p = 0.002); channels with the highest rates of ripples and fast ripples were resected in a similar proportion. INTERPRETATION: These results demonstrate that interictal HFOs are organized in networks and indicate a possible need for the resection of first source channels. However, resecting them is not superior to resecting channels with highest rates of HFOs. Ann Neurol 2019;85:485-494.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations99
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207