Association of EEG-fMRI Responses and Outcome After Epilepsy Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives To assess the utility of EEG-fMRI for epilepsy surgery, we evaluated surgical outcome in relation to the resection of the most significant EEG-fMRI response. Methods Patients with postoperative neuroimaging and follow-up of at least 1 year were included. In EEG-fMRI responses, we defined as primary the cluster with the highest absolute t value located in the cortex and evaluated 3 levels of confidence for the results. The threshold for low confidence was t ≥ 3.1 (p < 0.005); the one for medium confidence corresponded to correction for multiple comparisons with a false discovery rate of 0.05; and a result reached high confidence when the primary cluster was much more significant than the next highest cluster. Concordance with the resection was determined by comparison to postoperative neuroimaging. Results We evaluated 106 epilepsy surgeries in 84 patients. An increasing association between concordance and surgical outcome with higher levels of confidence was demonstrated. If the peak response was not resected, the surgical outcome was likely to be poor: for the high confidence level, no patient had a good outcome; for the medium and low levels, only 18% and 28% had a good outcome. The positive predictive value remained low for all confidence levels, indicating that removing the maximum cluster did not ensure seizure freedom. Discussion Resection of the primary EEG-fMRI cluster, especially in high confidence cases, is necessary to obtain a good outcome but not sufficient. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class II evidence that failure to resect the primary EEG-fMRI cluster is associated with poorer epilepsy surgery outcomes.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".