MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3039815469 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-67626-x

Identification of neural networks preferentially engaged by epileptogenic mass lesions through lesion network mapping analysis

2020· article· en· W3039815469 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Mansouri, Jürgen Germann, Alexandre Boutet, Gavin J.B. Elias, Karim Mithani, Clement T. Chow, Brij Karmur, George M. Ibrahim, Mary Pat McAndrews, Andrés M. Lozano, Gelareh Zadeh, Taufik A. Valiante

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelLesionPattern recognition (psychology)Magnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceMedicineEpilepsyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceRadiologyPathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< 0.05) and binarized; the thresholded binarized connectivity maps were subsequently summed to produce overall group connectivity maps, which were compared with established resting-state networks to identify potential networks prone to epileptogenicity. To validate our data, this approach was also applied to an external dataset of epileptogenic lesions identified from the literature (EL_LIT). As an additional exploratory analysis, we also segmented and computed the connectivity of institutional non-epileptogenic lesions (NEL_INST), calculating voxel-wise odds ratios (VORs) to identify voxels more likely to be functionally-connected with EL_INST versus NEL_INST. To ensure connectivity results were not driven by anatomical overlap, the extent of lesion overlap between EL_INST, and EL_LIT and NEL_INST was assessed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC, lower index ~ less overlap). Twenty-eight patients from our institution were included (EL_INST: 17 patients, 17 lesions, 10 low-grade glioma, 3 cavernoma, 4 focal cortical dysplasia; NEL_INST: 11 patients, 33 lesions, all brain metastases). An additional 23 cases (25 lesions) with similar characteristics to the EL_INST data were identified from the literature (EL_LIT). Despite minimal anatomical overlap of lesions, both EL_INST and EL_LIT showed greatest functional connectivity overlap with structures in the Default Mode Network, Frontoparietal Network, Ventral Attention Network, and the Limbic Network-with percentage volume overlap of 19.5%, 19.1%, 19.1%, and 12.5%, respectively-suggesting them as networks consistently engaged by epileptogenic mass lesions. Our exploratory analysis moreover showed that the mesial frontal lobes, parahippocampal gyrus, and lateral temporal neocortex were at least twice as likely to be functionally connected with the EL_INST compared to the NEL_INST group (i.e. Peak VOR > 2.0); canonical resting-state networks preferentially engaged by EL_INSTs were the Limbic and the Frontoparietal Networks (Mean VOR > 1.5). In this proof of concept study, we demonstrate the feasibility of LNM for intra-axial mass lesions by showing that ELs have discrete functional connections and may preferentially engage in discrete resting-state networks. Thus, the underlying normative neural circuitry may, in part, explain the propensity of particular lesions toward the development of MRE. If prospectively validated, this has ramifications for patient counseling along with both approach and timing of surgery for lesions in locations prone to development of MRE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→