MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310036589 · doi:10.3390/brainsci12121616

Acute Effects of High-Frequency Insular Stimulation on Interictal Epileptiform Discharge Rates in Patients with Refractory Epilepsy

2022· article· en· W4310036589 on OpenAlexaff
Thi Phuoc Yen Tran, Antoine Dionne, Dènahin Hinnoutondji Toffa, David Bergeron, Sami Obaïd, Manon Robert, Alain Bouthillier, Elie Bou Assi, Dang Khoa Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIctalEpilepsyDeep brain stimulationAnesthesiaStimulationRefractory (planetary science)InsulaInsular cortexMedicineThalamusElectroencephalographyPsychologyNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of several sites, such as the thalamus, has been shown to reduce seizure frequency and interictal epileptiform activity in patients with refractory epilepsy. Recent findings have demonstrated that the insula is part of the ‘rich club’ of highly connected brain regions. This pilot study investigated short-term effects of high-frequency (HF) insular DBS on interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) rate in patients with refractory epilepsy. Methods: Six patients with drug-resistant epilepsy undergoing an intracranial electroencephalographic study received two sets of 10 min continuous 150 Hz HF-DBS of the insula. For each patient, epileptiform activity was analyzed for a total of 80 min, starting 20 min prior to stimulation set 1 (S1), and ending 20 min after stimulation set 2 (S2). All IEDs were identified and classified according to their anatomic localization by a board-certified epileptologist. The IED rate during the 20 min preceding S1 served as a baseline for comparison with IED rate during S1, S2 and post-stimulation periods. Results: HF-DBS of the anterior insula (aINS) was performed in a patient with an aINS epileptic focus (patient 1). HF-DBS of the posterior insula (pINS) was performed in two patients with a pINS epileptic focus (patients 2 and 4), in one patient with an aINS focus (patient 3), and in two non-insular patients (patients 5 and 6). The total IED (irrespective of their location) rate significantly decreased (p < 0.01) in two patients (patients 1 and 2) during the stimulation period, whereas it significantly increased (p < 0.01) in one patient (patient 6); there was no change in the other three patients. Looking at subsets of spike localization, HF-DBS of the aINS significantly reduced aINS and orbitofrontal IEDs in patient 1 (p < 0.01), while HF-DBS of the pINS had an effect on pINS IEDs (p < 0.01) in both patients with a pINS focus; there was no significant effect of HF-DBS of the insula on IEDs in temporal or other frontal regions. Conclusion: Short-term HF-DBS of the insula had heterogeneous effects on the IED rate. Further work is required to examine factors underlying these heterogeneous effects, such as stimulation frequency, location of IEDs and subregions of the insula stimulated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207