Learn how to interpret and use intracranial <scp>EEG</scp> findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy surgery is the therapy of choice for many patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Recognizing and describing ictal and interictal patterns with intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) recordings is important in order to most efficiently leverage advantages of this technique to accurately delineate the seizure-onset zone before undergoing surgery. In this seminar in epileptology, we address learning objective "1.4.11 Recognize and describe ictal and interictal patterns with intracranial recordings" of the International League against Epilepsy curriculum for epileptologists. We will review principal considerations of the implantation planning, summarize the literature for the most relevant ictal and interictal EEG patterns within and beyond the Berger frequency spectrum, review invasive stimulation for seizure and functional mapping, discuss caveats in the interpretation of intracranial EEG findings, provide an overview on special considerations in children and in subdural grids/strips, and review available quantitative/signal analysis approaches. To be as practically oriented as possible, we will provide a mini atlas of the most frequent EEG patterns, highlight pearls for its not infrequently challenging interpretation, and conclude with two illustrative case examples. This article shall serve as a useful learning resource for trainees in clinical neurophysiology/epileptology by providing a basic understanding on the concepts of invasive intracranial EEG.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it