MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997020719 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2019.2963430

Excitation and Inhibition Balance Underlying Epileptiform Activity

2020· article· en· W2997020719 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuhan Liu, Vasily Grigorovsky, Berj L. Bardakjian

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBalance (ability)IctalElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceEpilepsyPsychologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The phenomenon of postictal generalized EEG suppression state (PGES) - a period with suppressed activity following seizure termination and has been found to be associated with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy - remains poorly understood. This article aims to examine the how the balance of excitation and inhibition (E/I balance) affect the dynamics of seizure and PGES. METHODS: A network of 1000 Izhikevich model neurons was developed and only the strengths of synaptic connections were adjusted to recreate the dynamics observed in recordings of seizure and PGES from human patients. RESULTS: A rapid rise followed by a slow decay of dominant frequency was observed in iEEG recordings of ictal periods and reproduced in the simulated local field potential by changing the E/I balance of the model network. The rate of this dominant frequency evolution was quantified by a single measure, β, which was found to have a significant rank correlation with the duration of PGES in iEEG data and the rate of E/I balance shift in the model. Significance and Conclusion: (i) highlighting the importance of E/I balance in the dynamics of seizure and PGES; (ii) suggesting the measure, β, as a marker for PGES and the shift in E/I balance as a neural correlate for this marker.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207