MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401845823 · doi:10.1111/epi.18081

Interictal stereo‐electroencephalography features below 45 Hz are sufficient for correct localization of the epileptogenic zone and postsurgical outcome prediction

2024· article· en· W4401845823 on OpenAlexaff
Petr Klimeš, Petr Nejedlý, Valentina Hrtonová, Jan Cimbálník, Vojtěch Trávníček, Martin Pail, Laure Peter‐Derex, Jeffery A. Hall, Raluca Pana, Josef Halámek, Pavel Jurák, Milan Brázdil, Birgit Frauscher

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersAkademie Věd České RepublikyMinisterstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské RepublikyGrantová Agentura České RepublikyMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a TělovýchovyEuropean Commission
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyRandom forestElectroencephalographyIctalPattern recognition (psychology)McNemar's testArtificial intelligenceLogistic regressionMathematicsNuclear medicineStatisticsComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that the most promising results in interictal localization of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) are achieved by a combination of multiple stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) biomarkers in machine learning models. These biomarkers usually include SEEG features calculated in standard frequency bands, but also high-frequency (HF) bands. Unfortunately, HF features require extra effort to record, store, and process. Here we investigate the added value of these HF features for EZ localization and postsurgical outcome prediction. METHODS: In 50 patients we analyzed 30 min of SEEG recorded during non-rapid eye movement sleep and tested a logistic regression model with three different sets of features. The first model used broadband features (1-500 Hz); the second model used low-frequency features up to 45 Hz; and the third model used HF features above 65 Hz. The EZ localization by each model was evaluated by various metrics including the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and the positive predictive value (PPV). The differences between the models were tested by the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Cliff's Delta effect size. The differences in outcome predictions based on PPV values were further tested by the McNemar test. RESULTS: The AUPRC score of the random chance classifier was .098. The models (broad-band, low-frequency, high-frequency) achieved median AUPRCs of .608, .582, and .522, respectively, and correctly predicted outcomes in 38, 38, and 33 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in AUPRC or any other metric between the three models. Adding HF features to the model did not have any additional contribution. SIGNIFICANCE: Low-frequency features are sufficient for correct localization of the EZ and outcome prediction with no additional value when considering HF features. This finding allows significant simplification of the feature calculation process and opens the possibility of using these models in SEEG recordings with lower sampling rates, as commonly performed in clinical routines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207