MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200149733 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4405

Development and Validation of the 5-SENSE Score to Predict Focality of the Seizure-Onset Zone as Assessed by Stereoelectroencephalography

2021· article· en· W4200149733 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra Astner-Rohracher, Georg Zimmermann, Tamir Avigdor, Chifaou Abdallah, Nirav Barot, Milan Brázdil, Irena Doležalová, Jean Gotman, Jeffery A. Hall, K. Ikeda, Philippe Kahane, Gudrun Kalss, Vasileios Kokkinos, Markus Leitinger, Ioana Mı̂ndruță, Lorella Minotti, Mary Margaret Mizera, Irina Oane, Mark P. Richardson, Stephan Schuele, Eugen Trinka, Alexandra Urban, Benjamin Whatley, François Dubeau, Birgit Frauscher

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDalhousie UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyEpilepsy surgeryEpilepsyNeuroimagingMedicineElectroencephalographyLogistic regressionCohortDrug Resistant EpilepsyInterquartile rangeMagnetic resonance imagingNeuropsychologyRadiologySurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) has become the criterion standard in case of inconclusive noninvasive presurgical epilepsy workup. However, up to 40% of patients are subsequently not offered surgery because the seizure-onset zone is less focal than expected or cannot be identified. Objective: To predict focality of the seizure-onset zone in SEEG, the 5-point 5-SENSE score was developed and validated. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a monocentric cohort study for score development followed by multicenter validation with patient selection intervals between February 2002 to October 2018 and May 2002 to December 2019. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy undergoing SEEG at the Montreal Neurological Institute were analyzed to identify a focal seizure-onset zone. Selection criteria were 2 or more seizures in electroencephalography and availability of complete neuropsychological and neuroimaging data sets. For validation, patients from 9 epilepsy centers meeting these criteria were included. Analysis took place between May and July 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Based on SEEG, patients were grouped as focal and nonfocal seizure-onset zone. Demographic, clinical, electroencephalography, neuroimaging, and neuropsychology data were analyzed, and a multiple logistic regression model for developing a score to predict SEEG focality was created and validated in an independent sample. Results: A total of 128 patients (57 women [44.5%]; median [range] age, 31 [13-58] years) were analyzed for score development and 207 patients (97 women [46.9%]; median [range] age, 32 [16-70] years) were analyzed for validation. The score comprised the following 5 predictive variables: focal lesion on structural magnetic resonance imaging, absence of bilateral independent spikes in scalp electroencephalography, localizing neuropsychological deficit, strongly localizing semiology, and regional ictal scalp electroencephalography onset. The 5-SENSE score had an optimal mean (SD) probability cutoff for identifying a focal seizure-onset zone of 37.6 (3.5). Area under the curve, specificity, and sensitivity were 0.83, 76.3% (95% CI, 66.7-85.8), and 83.3% (95% CI, 72.30-94.1), respectively. Validation showed 76.0% (95% CI, 67.5-84.0) specificity and 52.3% (95% CI, 43.0-61.5) sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance: High specificity in score development and validation confirms that the 5-SENSE score predicts patients where SEEG is unlikely to identify a focal seizure-onset zone. It is a simple and useful tool for assisting clinicians to reduce unnecessary invasive diagnostic burden on patients and overutilization of limited health care resources.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207