MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285741857 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac151

Protocol for multicentre comparison of interictal high-frequency oscillations as a predictor of seizure freedom

2022· article· en· W4285741857 on OpenAlexaff
Vasileios Dimakopoulos, Jean Gotman, William C. Stacey, Nicolás von Ellenrieder, Julia Jacobs, Christos Papadelis, Jan Cimbálník, Gregory A. Worrell, Michael R. Sperling, Maike Zijlmans, Lucas Imbach, Birgit Frauscher, Johannes Sarnthein

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsIctalEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryRippleElectroencephalographyPsychologyAudiologyComputer scienceMedicineNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In drug-resistant focal epilepsy, interictal high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) recorded from intracranial EEG (iEEG) may provide clinical information for delineating epileptogenic brain tissue. The iEEG electrode contacts that contain HFO are hypothesized to delineate the epileptogenic zone; their resection should then lead to postsurgical seizure freedom. We test whether our prospective definition of clinically relevant HFO is in agreement with postsurgical seizure outcome. The algorithm is fully automated and is equally applied to all data sets. The aim is to assess the reliability of the proposed detector and analysis approach. We use an automated data-independent prospective definition of clinically relevant HFO that has been validated in data from two independent epilepsy centres. In this study, we combine retrospectively collected data sets from nine independent epilepsy centres. The analysis is blinded to clinical outcome. We use iEEG recordings during NREM sleep with a minimum of 12 epochs of 5 min of NREM sleep. We automatically detect HFO in the ripple (80-250 Hz) and in the fast ripple (250-500 Hz) band. There is no manual rejection of events in this fully automated algorithm. The type of HFO that we consider clinically relevant is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of a fast ripple and a ripple. We calculate the temporal consistency of each patient's HFO rates over several data epochs within and between nights. Patients with temporal consistency <50% are excluded from further analysis. We determine whether all electrode contacts with high HFO rate are included in the resection volume and whether seizure freedom (ILAE 1) was achieved at ≥2 years follow-up. Applying a previously validated algorithm to a large cohort from several independent epilepsy centres may advance the clinical relevance and the generalizability of HFO analysis as essential next step for use of HFO in clinical practice.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.012

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207