Focal epilepsy disrupts spindle structure and function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep spindles are the hallmark of N2 sleep and are attributed a key role in cognition. Little is known about the impact of epilepsy on sleep oscillations underlying sleep-related functions. This study assessed changes in the global spindle rate in patients with epilepsy, analysed the distribution of spindles in relation to the epileptic focus, and performed correlations with neurocognitive function. Twenty-one patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy (12 females; mean age 32.6 ± 10.7 years [mean ± SD]) and 12 healthy controls (3 females; 24.5 ± 3.3 years) underwent combined whole-night high-density electroencephalography and polysomnography. Global spindle rates during N2 were lower in epilepsy patients compared to controls (mean = 5.78/min ± 0.72 vs. 6.49/min ± 0.71, p = 0.02, d = - 0.70). Within epilepsy patients, spindle rates were lower in the region of the epileptic focus compared to the contralateral region (median = 4.77/min [range 2.53-6.18] vs. 5.26/min [2.53-6.56], p = 0.02, rank biserial correlation RC = - 0.57). This decrease was driven by fast spindles (12-16 Hz) (1.50/min [0.62-4.08] vs. 1.65/min [0.51-4.28], p = 0.002, RC = - 0.76). The focal reduction in spindles was negatively correlated with two scales of attention (r = - 0.54, p = 0.01; r = - 0.51, p = 0.025). Patients with focal epilepsy show a reduction in global and local spindle rates dependent on the region of the epileptic focus. This may play a role in impaired cognitive functioning. Future work will show if the local reduction in spindles can be used as potential marker of the epileptic focus.
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 | 0.000 | 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".