Association of fast ripples on intracranial EEG and outcomes after epilepsy surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine whether fast ripples (FRs) are an accurate marker of the epileptogenic zone, we analyzed overnight stereo-EEG recordings from 43 patients and hypothesized that FR resection ratio, maximal FR rate, and FR distribution predict postsurgical seizure outcome. Methods We detected FRs automatically from an overnight recording edited for artifacts and visually from a 5-minute period of slow-wave sleep. We examined primarily the accuracy of removing ≥50% of total FR events or of channels with FRs to predict postsurgical seizure outcome (Engel class I = good, classes II–IV = poor) according to the whole-night and 5-minute analysis approaches. Secondarily, we examined the association of low overall FR rates or absence or incomplete resection of 1 dominant FR area with poor outcome. Results The accuracy of outcome prediction was highest (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 67%–92%) with the use of the FR event resection ratio and whole-night recording (vs 72%, 95% CI 56%–85%, for the visual 5-minute approach). Absence of channels with FR rates >6/min (p = 0.001) and absence or incomplete resection of 1 dominant FR area (p < 0.001) were associated with poor outcome. Conclusions FRs are accurate in predicting epilepsy surgery outcome at the individual level when overnight recordings are used. Absence of channels with high FR rates or absence of 1 dominant FR area is a poor prognostic factor that may reflect suboptimal spatial sampling of the epileptogenic zone or multifocality, rather than an inherently low sensitivity of FRs. Classification of evidence This study provides Class II evidence that FRs are accurate in predicting epilepsy surgery outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 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".