HFO to Measure Seizure Propensity and Improve Prognostication in Patients With Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of high frequency oscillations (HFO) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) as biomarkers of epileptic activity has merely focused on their spatial location and relationship to the epileptogenic zone. It has been suggested in several ways that the amount of HFO at a certain point in time may reflect the disease activity or severity. This could be clinically useful in several ways, especially as noninvasive recording of HFO appears feasible. We grouped the potential hypotheses into 4 categories: (1) HFO as biomarkers to predict the development of epilepsy; (2) HFO as biomarkers to predict the occurrence of seizures; (3) HFO as biomarkers linked to the severity of epilepsy, and (4) HFO as biomarkers to evaluate outcome of treatment. We will review the literature that addresses these 4 hypotheses and see to what extent HFO can be used to measure seizure propensity and help determine prognosis of this unpredictable disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".