Relationship between location of epileptic focus and occurrence during sleep versus wakefulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different sleep stages exert differential effects on interictal discharges, neural synchrony and seizure threshold. We sought to assess the relationship between localization of the epileptogenic focus and seizure distribution in sleep versus wakefulness among patients with refractory epilepsy. We conducted a retrospective chart review-based study. Video-electroencephalography of patients with refractory epilepsy, planned for resective surgery, were reviewed for seizure localisation and occurrence relative to stage of sleep/wakefulness. Demographic/clinical data, including details of surgery, were also recorded. Bivariate analysis was conducted using the chi-square test for proportions and unpaired t-test/ANOVA to compare the means within groups. We enrolled 175 patients (107 males) with a mean age of 26.1 + 9.8 years (range: 4-53 years). We analysed 1,282 seizures, of which 916 (71.5%) were temporal, 95 (7.4%) frontal, 144 (11.2 %) central/ parietal and 19 (1.5%) arose from the occipital lobe. Temporal lobe onset seizures were more frequent during wakefulness (77.7%) compared to extra-temporal localization (65%) (p<0.0001). Amongst temporal lobe onset seizures, those during wakefulness arose more frequently from the lateral temporal (88.6%) compared to the mesial temporal lobe (75.5%) (p=0.0003). A higher proportion of seizures evolved into secondary generalisation during sleep (23.5%) versus 8.7% during wakefulness (p<0.0001). Our study demonstrates that lobar location of epileptogenic foci is associated with a predilection of seizures to occur, as well as secondarily generalise, during sleep/wakefulness. Seizures with lateral temporal lobe as well as extratemporal lobe onset were more likely to occur during wakefulness. Overall, sleep related seizures were more likely to be of extratemporal lobe onset, though.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".