Grading system for assessing the confidence in the epileptogenic zone reported in published studies: A Delphi consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to develop a standardized grading system based on expert consensus for evaluating the level of confidence in the localization of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) as reported in published studies, to harmonize and facilitate systematic reviews in the field of epilepsy surgery. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi study involving 22 experts from 18 countries, who were asked to rate their level of confidence in the localization of the EZ for various theoretical clinical scenarios, using different scales. Information provided in these scenarios included one or several of the following data: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, invasive electroencephalography summary, and postoperative seizure outcome. RESULTS: The first explorative phase showed an overall interrater agreement of .347, pointing to large heterogeneity among experts' assessments, with only 17% of the 42 proposed scenarios associated with a substantial level of agreement. A majority showed preferences for the simpler scale and single-item scenarios. The successive Delphi voting phases resulted in a majority consensus across experts, with more than two thirds of respondents agreeing on the rating of each of the tested single-item scenarios. High or very high levels of confidence were ascribed to patients with either an Engel class I or class IA postoperative seizure outcome, a well-delineated EZ according to all available invasive EEG (iEEG) data, or a well-delineated focal epileptogenic lesion on MRI. MRI signs of hippocampal sclerosis or atrophy were associated with a moderate level of confidence, whereas a low level was ascribed to other MRI findings, a poorly delineated EZ according to iEEG data, or an Engel class II-IV postoperative seizure outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed grading system, based on an expert consensus, provides a simple framework to rate the level of confidence in the EZ reported in published studies in a structured and harmonized way, offering an opportunity to facilitate and increase the quality of systematic reviews and guidelines in the field of epilepsy surgery.
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 | 0.470 | 0.474 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".