Computational modelling in source space from scalp EEG to inform presurgical evaluation of epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) to inform epilepsy surgery depends on where iEEG electrodes are implanted. This decision is informed by noninvasive recording modalities such as scalp EEG. Herein we propose a framework to interrogate scalp EEG and determine epilepsy lateralization to aid in electrode implantation. METHODS: We use eLORETA to map source activities from seizure epochs recorded from scalp EEG and consider 15 regions of interest (ROIs). Functional networks are then constructed using the phase-locking value and studied using a mathematical model. By removing different ROIs from the network and simulating their impact on the network's ability to generate seizures in silico, the framework provides predictions of epilepsy lateralization. We consider 15 individuals from the EPILEPSIAE database and study a total of 62 seizures. Results were assessed by taking into account actual intracranial implantations and surgical outcome. RESULTS: The framework provided potentially useful information regarding epilepsy lateralization in 12 out of the 15 individuals (p=0.02, binomial test). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show promise for the use of this framework to better interrogate scalp EEG to determine epilepsy lateralization. SIGNIFICANCE: The framework may aid clinicians in the decision process to define where to implant electrodes for intracranial monitoring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".