Beyond Stereo-EEG: Is It Worth Combining Stereo-EEG With Other Diagnostic Methods?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Stereo-EEG is a widely used method to improve the diagnostic precision of presurgical workup in patients with refractory epilepsy. Its ability to detect epileptic activity and identify epileptic networks largely depends on the chosen implantation strategy. Even in an ideal situation, electrodes record activity generated in <10% of the brain and contacts only record from brain tissue in their immediate proximity. In this article, the authors discuss how recording stereo-EEG simultaneously with other diagnostic methods can improve its diagnostic value in clinical and research settings. It can help overcome the limited spatial coverage of intracranial recording and better understand the sources of epileptic activity. Simultaneous scalp EEG is the most widely available method, often used to understand large epileptic networks, seizure propagation, and EEG activity occurring on the contralateral hemisphere. Simultaneous magnetoencephalography allows for more precise source localization and identification of deep sources outside the stereo-EEG coverage. Finally, simultaneous functional MRI can highlight metabolic changes following epileptic activity and help understand the widespread network changes associated with interictal activity. This overview highlights advantages and methodological challenges for all these methods. Clinical use and research applications are presented for each approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".