Distinction of Physiologic and Epileptic Ripples: An Electrical Stimulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ripple oscillations (80–250 Hz) are a promising biomarker of epileptic activity, but are also involved in memory consolidation, which impairs their value as a diagnostic tool. Distinguishing physiologic from epileptic ripples has been particularly challenging because usually, invasive recordings are only performed in patients with refractory epilepsy. Here, we identified ‘healthy’ brain areas based on electrical stimulation and hypothesized that these regions specifically generate ‘pure’ ripples not coupled to spikes. Intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) recorded with subdural grid electrodes was retrospectively analyzed in 19 patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Interictal spikes and ripples were automatically detected in slow-wave sleep using the publicly available Delphos software. We found that rates of spikes, ripples and ripples coupled to spikes (‘spike–ripples’) were higher inside the seizure-onset zone (p < 0.001). A comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that spike–ripples slightly delineated the seizure-onset zone channels, but did this significantly better than spikes (p < 0.001). Ripples were more frequent in the eloquent neocortex than in the remaining non-seizure onset zone areas (p < 0.001). This was due to the higher rates of ‘pure’ ripples (p < 0.001; median rates 3.3/min vs. 1.4/min), whereas spike–ripple rates were not significantly different (p = 0.87). ‘Pure’ ripples identified ‘healthy’ channels significantly better than chance (p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that, in contrast to epileptic spike–ripples, ‘pure’ ripples are mainly physiological. They may be considered, in addition to electrical stimulation, to delineate eloquent cortex in pre-surgical patients. Since we applied open source software for detection, our approach may be generally suited to tackle a variety of research questions in epilepsy and cognitive science.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".