Overlap of spike and ripple propagation onset predicts surgical outcome in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interictal biomarkers are critical for identifying the epileptogenic focus. However, spikes and ripples lack specificity while fast ripples lack sensitivity. These biomarkers propagate from more epileptogenic onset to areas of spread. The pathophysiological mechanism of these propagations is elusive. Here, we examine zones where spikes and high frequency oscillations co-occur (SHFO), the spatiotemporal propagations of spikes, ripples, and fast ripples, and evaluate the spike-ripple onset overlap (SRO) as an epilepsy biomarker. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed intracranial EEG data from 41 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. We mapped propagations of spikes, ripples, and fast ripples, and identified their onset and spread zones, as well as SHFO and SRO. We then estimated the SRO prognostic value in predicting surgical outcome and compared it to onset and spread zones of spike, ripple, and fast ripple propagations, and SHFO. RESULTS: We detected spikes and ripples in all patients and fast ripples in 12 patients (29%). We observed spike and ripple propagations in 40 (98%) patients. Spike and ripple onsets overlapped in 35 (85%) patients. In good outcome patients, SRO showed higher specificity and precision (p < 0.05) in predicting resection compared to onset and zones of spikes, ripples, and SHFO. Only SRO resection predicted outcome (p = 0.01) with positive and negative predictive values of 82% and 57%, respectively. INTERPRETATION: SRO is a specific and precise biomarker of the epileptogenic zone whose removal predicts outcome. SRO is present in most patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Such a biomarker may reduce prolonged intracranial monitoring and improve 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".