MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043589371 · doi:10.1177/1535759720934852

Intracranial EEG in the 21st Century

2020· article· en· W3043589371 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara C. Jobst, Fabrice Bartoloméi, Beate Diehl, Birgit Frauscher, Philippe Kahane, Lorella Minotti, Ashwini Sharan, Nastasia Tardy, Gregory A. Worrell, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyIctalElectroencephalographyEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryNeuroimagingNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingMedicinePsychologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) has been the mainstay of identifying the seizure onset zone (SOZ), a key diagnostic procedure in addition to neuroimaging when considering epilepsy surgery. In many patients, iEEG has been the basis for resective epilepsy surgery, to date still the most successful treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. Intracranial EEG determines the location and resectability of the SOZ. Advances in recording and implantation of iEEG provide multiple options in the 21st century. This not only includes the choice between subdural electrodes (SDE) and stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) but also includes the implantation and recordings from microelectrodes. Before iEEG implantation, especially in magnetic resonance imaging -negative epilepsy, a clear hypothesis for seizure generation and propagation should be based on noninvasive methods. Intracranial EEG implantation should be planned by a multidisciplinary team considering epileptic networks. Recordings from SDE and SEEG have both their advantages and disadvantages. Stereo-EEG seems to have a lower rate of complications that are clinically significant, but has limitations in spatial sampling of the cortical surface. Stereo-EEG can sample deeper areas of the brain including deep sulci and hard to reach areas such as the insula. To determine the epileptogenic zone, interictal and ictal information should be taken into consideration. Interictal spiking, low frequency slowing, as well as high frequency oscillations may inform about the epileptogenic zone. Ictally, high frequency onsets in the beta/gamma range are usually associated with the SOZ, but specialized recordings with combined macro and microelectrodes may in the future educate us about onset in higher frequency bands. Stimulation of intracranial electrodes triggering habitual seizures can assist in identifying the SOZ. Advanced computational methods such as determining the epileptogenicity index and similar measures may enhance standard clinical interpretation. Improved techniques to record and interpret iEEG may in the future lead to a greater proportion of patients being seizure free after epilepsy surgery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currentsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207