Prognostic Value of Complete Resection of the High-Frequency Oscillation Area in Intracranial EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High-frequency oscillations (HFOs; ripples 80-250 Hz; fast ripples [FRs] 250-500 Hz) recorded with intracranial electrodes generated excitement and debate about their potential to localize epileptogenic foci. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prognostic value of complete resection of the HFOs-area (crHFOs-area) for epilepsy surgical outcome in intracranial EEG (iEEG) accessing multiple subgroups. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for original research from inception to October 27, 2022. We defined favorable surgical outcome (FSO) as Engel class I, International League Against Epilepsy class 1, or seizure-free status. The prognostic value of crHFOs-area for FSO was assessed by (1) the pooled FSO proportion after crHFOs-area; (2) FSO for crHFOs-area vs without crHFOs-area; and (3) the predictive performance. We defined high combined prognostic value as FSO proportion >80% + FSO crHFOs-area >without crHFOs-area + area under the curve (AUC) >0.75 and examined this for the clinical subgroups (study design, age, diagnostic type, HFOs-identification method, HFOs-rate thresholding, and iEEG state). Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) was compared with extra-TLE through dichotomous variable analysis. Individual patient analysis was performed for sex, affected hemisphere, MRI findings, surgery location, and pathology. RESULTS: = 0.02 after multiple correction). DISCUSSION: Complete resection of the brain area with HFOs is associated with good postsurgical outcome. Its prognostic value holds, especially for FRs, for various subgroups. The use of HFOs for extra-TLE patients requires further evidence.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".