Targeted density electrode placement achieves high concordance with traditional high-density EEG for electrical source imaging in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-density (HD) electroencephalography (EEG) is increasingly used in presurgical epilepsy evaluation, but it is demanding in time and resources. To overcome these issues, we compared EEG source imaging (ESI) solutions with a targeted density and HD-EEG montage. METHODS: HD-EEGs from patients undergoing presurgical evaluation were analyzed. A low-density recording was created by selecting the 25 electrodes of a standard montage from the 83 electrodes of the HD-EEG and adding 8-11 electrodes around the electrode with the highest amplitude interictal epileptiform discharges. The ESI solution from this "targeted" montage was compared to that from the HD-EEG using the distance between peak vertices, sublobar concordance and a qualitative similarity measure. RESULTS: Fifty-eight foci of forty-three patients were included. The median distance between the peak vertices of the two montages was 13.2 mm, irrespective of focus' location. Tangential generators (n = 5/58) showed a higher distance than radial generators (p = 0.04). We found sublobar concordance in 54/58 of the foci (93%). Map similarity, assessed by an epileptologist, had a median score of 4/5. CONCLUSIONS: ESI solutions obtained from a targeted density montage show high concordance with those calculated from HD-EEG. SIGNIFICANCE: Requiring significantly fewer electrodes, targeted density EEG allows obtaining similar ESI solutions as traditional HD-EEG montage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".