Development and validation of machine learning models for prediction of seizure outcome after pediatric epilepsy surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is substantial variability in reported seizure outcome following pediatric epilepsy surgery, and lack of individualized predictive tools that could evaluate the probability of seizure freedom postsurgery. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a supervised machine learning (ML) model for predicting seizure freedom after pediatric epilepsy surgery. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of children who underwent epilepsy surgery at five pediatric epilepsy centers in North America. Clinical information, diagnostic investigations, and surgical characteristics were collected, and used as features to predict seizure-free outcome 1 year after surgery. The dataset was split randomly into 80% training and 20% testing data. Thirty-five combinations of five feature sets with seven ML classifiers were assessed on the training cohort using 10-fold cross-validation for model development. The performance of the optimal combination of ML classifier and feature set was evaluated in the testing cohort, and compared with logistic regression, a classical statistical approach. RESULTS: Of the 801 patients included, 61.3% were seizure-free 1 year postsurgery. During model development, the best combination was XGBoost ML algorithm with five features from the univariate feature set, including number of antiseizure medications, magnetic resonance imaging lesion, age at seizure onset, video-electroencephalography concordance, and surgery type, with a mean area under the curve (AUC) of .73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = .69-.77). The combination of XGBoost and univariate feature set was then evaluated on the testing cohort and achieved an AUC of .74 (95% CI = .66-.82; sensitivity = .87, 95% CI = .81-.94; specificity = .58, 95% CI = .47-.71). The XGBoost model outperformed the logistic regression model (AUC = .72, 95% CI = .63-.80; sensitivity = .72, 95% CI = .63-.82; specificity = .66, 95% CI = .53-.77) in the testing cohort (p = .005). SIGNIFICANCE: This study identified important features and validated an ML algorithm, XGBoost, for predicting the probability of seizure freedom after pediatric epilepsy surgery. Improved prognostication of epilepsy surgery is critical for presurgical counseling and will inform treatment decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".