Electroencephalography–functional magnetic resonance imaging for clinical evaluation in focal epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the contribution of simultaneous recording of electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging (EEG-fMRI) in the diagnosis of epilepsy syndrome, localization of the epileptogenic zone (EZ), and decision-making regarding surgical treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to evaluate patients with focal epilepsy who underwent EEG-fMRI. Two evaluators assessed epilepsy syndrome, presumed focus, and surgical candidacy and defined confidence levels. They assessed these clinical characteristics first without EEG-fMRI and then including EEG-fMRI to assess how the results of EEG-fMRI changed the evaluations. We also determined how the clinical evaluation was affected by the concordance level between the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) response and the presumed focus location, and by the confidence level of the BOLD response itself based on the t-value of the primary and secondary clusters. RESULTS: Fifty-one scans from 48 patients were included. The BOLD map affected 66.7% of the evaluations by altering evaluation items (epilepsy syndrome, presumed focus, or surgical candidacy) or their confidence levels. EEG-fMRI results increased the confidence levels of epilepsy syndrome, presumed focus, or surgical candidacy in 47.1% of patients but reduced clinical confidence in these features in 11.8%. More specifically, the confidence levels increased for epilepsy syndrome in 28.5%, identification of presumed focus in 33.9%, and determination of surgical candidacy in 29.4%. The BOLD signal confidence level, whether high or low, did not influence these clinical factors. SIGNIFICANCE: Previous studies have emphasized the utility of EEG-fMRI for the localization of the epileptogenic zone. This study demonstrated the potential of EEG-fMRI to influence clinical confidence when determining epilepsy syndrome, the presumed epileptic focus, and surgical candidacy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".