Interictal spikes with and without high-frequency oscillation have different single-neuron correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) are a widely used biomarker in patients with epilepsy but lack specificity. It has been proposed that there are truly epileptogenic and less pathological or even protective IEDs. Recent studies suggest that highly pathological IEDs are characterized by high-frequency oscillations (HFOs). Here, we aimed to dissect these 'HFO-IEDs' at the single-neuron level, hypothesizing that the underlying mechanisms are distinct from 'non-HFO-IEDs'. Analysing hybrid depth electrode recordings from patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, we found that single-unit firing rates were higher in HFO- than in non-HFO-IEDs. HFO-IEDs were characterized by a pronounced pre-peak increase in firing, which coincided with the preferential occurrence of HFOs, whereas in non-HFO-IEDs, there was only a mild pre-peak increase followed by a post-peak suppression. Comparing each unit's firing during HFO-IEDs to its baseline activity, we found many neurons with a significant increase during the HFO component or ascending part, but almost none with a decrease. No such imbalance was observed during non-HFO-IEDs. Finally, comparing each unit's firing directly between HFO- and non-HFO-IEDs, we found that most cells had higher rates during HFO-IEDs and, moreover, identified a distinct subset of neurons with a significant preference for this IED subtype. In summary, our study reveals that HFO- and non-HFO-IEDs have different single-unit correlates. In HFO-IEDs, many neurons are moderately activated, and some participate selectively, suggesting that both types of increased firing contribute to highly pathological IEDs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".