Somatosensory evoked fields predict response to vagus nerve stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an unmet need to develop robust predictive algorithms to preoperatively identify pediatric epilepsy patients who will respond to vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Given the similarity in the neural circuitry between vagus and median nerve afferent projections to the primary somatosensory cortex, the current study hypothesized that median nerve somatosensory evoked field(s) (SEFs) could be used to predict seizure response to VNS. Retrospective data from forty-eight pediatric patients who underwent VNS at two different institutions were used in this study. Thirty-six patients ("Discovery Cohort") underwent preoperative electrical median nerve stimulation during magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings and 12 patients ("Validation Cohort") underwent preoperative pneumatic stimulation during MEG. SEFs and their spatial deviation, waveform amplitude and latency, and event-related connectivity were calculated for all patients. A support vector machine (SVM) classifier was trained on the Discovery Cohort to differentiate responders from non-responders based on these input features and tested on the Validation Cohort by comparing the model-predicted response to VNS to the known response. We found that responders to VNS had significantly more widespread SEF localization and greater functional connectivity within limbic and sensorimotor networks in response to median nerve stimulation. No difference in SEF amplitude or latencies was observed between the two cohorts. The SVM classifier demonstrated 88.9% accuracy (0.93 area under the receiver operator characteristics curve) on cross-validation, which decreased to 67% in the Validation cohort. By leveraging overlapping neural circuitry, we found that median nerve SEF characteristics and functional connectivity could identify responders to VNS.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".