Combining OPM and lesion mapping data for epilepsy surgery planning: a simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When planning for epilepsy surgery, multiple potential sites for resection may be identified through anatomical imaging. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) using optically pumped sensors (OP-MEG) is a non-invasive functional neuroimaging technique which could be used to help identify the epileptogenic zone from these candidate regions. Here we test the utility of a-priori information from anatomical imaging for differentiating potential lesion sites with OP-MEG. We investigate a number of scenarios: whether to use rigid or flexible sensor arrays, with or without a-priori source information and with or without source modelling errors. We simulated OP-MEG recordings for 1309 potential lesion sites identified from anatomical images in the Multi-centre Epilepsy Lesion Detection (MELD) project. To localise the simulated data, we used three source inversion schemes: unconstrained, prior source locations at centre of the candidate sites, and prior source locations within a volume around the lesion location. We found that prior knowledge of the candidate lesion zones made the inversion robust to errors in sensor gain, orientation and even location. When the reconstruction was too highly restricted and the source assumptions were inaccurate, the utility of this a-priori information was undermined. Overall, we found that constraining the reconstruction to the region including and around the participant's potential lesion sites provided the best compromise of robustness against modelling or measurement error.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".