MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005099648 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102205

Somatosensory evoked fields predict response to vagus nerve stimulation

2020· article· en· W3005099648 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Mithani, Simeon M. Wong, Mirriam Mikhail, Haatef Pourmotabbed, Elizabeth W. Pang, Roy Sharma, Ivanna Yau, Ayako Ochi, Hiroshi Otsubo, O. Carter Snead, Elizabeth Donner, Cristina Go, Elysa Widjaja, Abbas Babajani‐Feremi, George M. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVagus nerve stimulationMedian nerveCohortSomatosensory evoked potentialSomatosensory systemMedicineReceiver operating characteristicMagnetoencephalographyVagus nerveStimulationNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyAnesthesiaPsychologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207