Connectomic Profiling Identifies Responders to Vagus Nerve Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a common treatment for medically intractable epilepsy, but response rates are highly variable, with no preoperative means of identifying good candidates. This study aimed to predict VNS response using structural and functional connectomic profiling. METHODS: Fifty-six children, comprising discovery (n = 38) and validation (n = 18) cohorts, were recruited from 3 separate institutions. Diffusion tensor imaging was used to identify group differences in white matter microstructure, which in turn informed beamforming of resting-state magnetoencephalography recordings. The results were used to generate a support vector machine learning classifier, which was independently validated. This algorithm was compared to a second classifier generated using 31 clinical covariates. RESULTS: Treatment responders demonstrated greater fractional anisotropy in left thalamocortical, limbic, and association fibers, as well as greater connectivity in a functional network encompassing left thalamic, insular, and temporal nodes (p < 0.05). The resulting classifier demonstrated 89.5% accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93 on 10-fold cross-validation. In the external validation cohort, this model demonstrated an accuracy of 83.3%, with a sensitivity of 85.7% and specificity of 75.0%. This was significantly superior to predictions using clinical covariates alone, which exhibited an area under the ROC curve of 0.57 (p < 0.008). INTERPRETATION: This study provides the first multi-institutional, multimodal connectomic prediction algorithm for VNS, and provides new insights into its mechanism of action. Reliable identification of VNS responders is critical to mitigate surgical risks for children who may not benefit, and to ensure cost-effective allocation of health care resources. ANN NEUROL 2019;86:743-753.
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 | 0.000 | 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".