Development of a stereo-EEG based seizure matching system for clinical decision making in epilepsy surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. The proportion of patients becoming seizure-free after epilepsy surgery has stagnated. Large multi-center stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) datasets can allow comparing new patients to past similar cases and making clinical decisions with the knowledge of how cases were treated in the past. However, the complexity of these evaluations makes the manual search for similar patients impractical. We aim to develop an automated system that electrographically and anatomically matches seizures to those in a database. Additionally, since features that define seizure similarity are unknown, we evaluate the agreement and features among experts in classifying similarity. Approach. We utilized 320 SEEG seizures from 95 consecutive patients who underwent epilepsy surgery. Eight international experts evaluated seizure-pair similarity using a four-level similarity score. As our primary outcome, we developed and validated an automated seizure matching system by employing patient data marked by independent experts. Secondary outcomes included the inter-rater agreement (IRA) and features for classifying seizure similarity. Main results. The seizure matching system achieved a median area-under-the-curve of 0.76 (interquartile range, 0.1), indicating its feasibility. Six distinct seizure similarity features were identified and proved effective: onset region, onset pattern, propagation region, duration, extent of spread, and propagation speed. Among these features, the onset region showed the strongest correlation with expert scores (Spearman’s rho = 0.75, p < 0.001). Additionally, the moderate IRA confirmed the practicality of our approach with an agreement of 73.9% (7%), and Gwet’s kappa of 0.45 (0.16). Further, the interoperability of the system was validated on seizures from five centers. Significance. We demonstrated the feasibility and validity of a SEEG seizure matching system across patients, effectively mirroring the expertise of epileptologists. This novel system can identify patients with seizures similar to that of a patient being evaluated, thus optimizing the treatment plan by considering the results of treating similar patients in the past, potentially improving surgery outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".