Biomarkers of seizure response to vagus nerve stimulation: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a common procedure, seizure outcomes are heterogeneous, with few available means to preoperatively identify the ideal surgical candidate. Here, we perform a scoping review of the literature to identify biomarkers of VNS response in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Several databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science) were searched for all relevant articles that reported at least one biomarker of VNS response following implantation for intractable epilepsy. Patient demographics, seizure data, and details related to biomarkers were abstracted from all studies. From the 288 records screened, 28 articles reporting on 16 putative biomarkers were identified. These were grouped into four categories: network/connectomic-based biomarkers, electrophysiological signatures, structural findings on neuroimaging, and systemic assays. Differences in brain network organization, connectivity, and electrophysiological synchronicity demonstrated the most robust ability to identify VNS responders. Structural findings on neuroimaging yielded inconsistent associations with VNS responsiveness. With regard to systemic biomarkers, heart rate variability was shown to be an independent marker of VNS response, whereas inflammatory markers were not useful. There is an unmet need to preoperatively identify candidates who are likely to benefit from VNS. Several biomarkers demonstrate promise in predicting seizure responsiveness to VNS, particularly measures of brain network connectivity. Further efforts are required to validate existing biomarkers to inform clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".