MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3115718122 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.24.20248799

Blinded study: prospectively defined high frequency oscillations predict seizure outcome in individual patients

2020· preprint· en· W3115718122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vasileios Dimakopoulos, Pierre Mégevand, Ece Boran, Shahan Momjian, Margitta Seeck, Serge Vulliémoz, Johannes Sarnthein

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität ZürichUniversité de GenèveSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIctalEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryProspective cohort studyMedicineAudiologyNuclear medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Interictal high frequency oscillations (HFO) are discussed as biomarkers for epileptogenic brain tissue that should be resected in epilepsy surgery to achieve seizure freedom. The prospective classification of tissue sampled by individual electrode contacts remains a challenge. We have developed an automated, prospective definition of clinically relevant HFO in intracranial EEG (iEEG) from MNI Montreal and tested it in iEEG from Zurich. We here validate the algorithm on iEEG recorded in an independent epilepsy center so that HFO analysis was blinded to seizure outcome. Methods We selected consecutive patients from Geneva University Hospitals who underwent resective epilepsy surgery with postsurgical follow-up > 12 months. We analyzed long-term iEEG recordings during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep that we segmented into intervals of 5 min. HFOs were defined in the ripple (80-250 Hz) and the fast ripple (FR, 250-500 Hz) frequency band. Contacts with the highest rate of ripples co-occurring with FR (FRandR) designated the HFO area. If the HFO area was not fully resected and the patient suffered from recurrent seizures (ILAE 2-6), this was classified as a true positive (TP) prediction. Results We included iEEG recordings from 16 patients (median age 32 y, range [18-53]) with stereotactic depth electrodes and/or with subdural electrode grids (median follow-up 27 mo, range [12-55]). The HFO area had high test-retest reliability across intervals (median dwell time 95%). We excluded two patients with dwell time < 50% from further analysis. The HFO area was fully included in the resected volume in 2/4 patients who achieved postoperative seizure freedom (ILAE 1, specificity 50%) and was not fully included in 9/10 patients with recurrent seizures (ILAE > 1, sensitivity 90%), leading to an accuracy of 79%. Conclusions We validated the automated procedure to delineate the clinical relevant HFO area in individual patients of an independently recorded dataset and achieved the same good accuracy as in our previous studies. Significance The reproducibility of our results across datasets is promising for a multicienter study testing the clinical application of HFO detection to guide 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→