MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403779065 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2024.1476476

Mean global field power is reduced in infantile epileptic spasms syndrome after response to vigabatrin

2024· article· en· W4403779065 on OpenAlexafffund
ARJUN NAIR, Joycelyne Ewusie, Robyn Whitney, Kevin Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsVigabatrinMedicineWest SyndromeEpilepsyEpileptic spasmsPsychologyNeurosciencePediatricsAnticonvulsant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS) is associated with abnormal neuronal networks during a critical period of synaptogenesis and brain plasticity. Hypsarrhythmia is a visual EEG biomarker used to diagnose IESS, assess response to treatment, and monitor relapse. Computational EEG biomarkers hold promise in providing unbiased, reliable, and objective criteria for clinical management. We hypothesized that computational and visual EEG biomarkers of IESS would correlate after treatment with vigabatrin and that these responses might differ between responders and non-responders. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted at a single center, involving children with IESS at initial diagnosis and following first-line treatment with vigabatrin. Visual EEG biomarkers of hypsarrhythmia were compared with computational EEG biomarkers, including spike and spike fast-oscillation source coherence, spectral power, and mean global field power, using retrospective analysis of EEG recorded at initial diagnosis and after vigabatrin treatment. Responders and non-responders were compared based on the characteristics of their follow-up EEGs. Results In this pilot study, we observed a reduction in the EEG biomarker of hypsarrhythmia/modified hypsarrhythmia from 20/20 (100%) cases at the initial diagnosis to 9/20 (45%) cases after treatment with vigabatrin, indicating a 55% (11/20) responder rate. No significant difference in spike frequency was observed after treatment (p = 0.104). We observed no significant differences after treatment with vigabatrin in the computational EEG biomarkers that we assessed, including spike source coherence at 90% (p = 0.983), spike source coherence lag range (p > 0.999), spike gamma source coherence at 90% (p = 0.177), spike gamma source coherence lag range (p > 0.999), spectral power (0.642), or mean global field power (0.932). However, when follow-up EEGs were compared, there was a significant difference in mean global field power (p = 0.038) between vigabatrin responders and non-responders. In contrast, no such difference was observed for spike source coherence at 90% (p = 0.285), spike course coherence lag range (p = 0.819), spike gamma source coherence at 90% (p = 0.205), spike gamma source coherence lag range (p > 0.999), or spectral power (p = 0.445). Finally, our treated group did not differ significantly from healthy controls at initial diagnosis or follow-up in terms of spectral power (p = 0.420) or mean global field power (0.127). Conclusion In this pilot study, we show that mean global field power is a computational EEG biomarker that is significantly reduced in IESS after treatment with vigabatrin. Although computational EEG biomarkers of network connectivity using spike source coherence appear to be a promising tool, future studies should further explore their potential for assessing treatment responses in IESS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.284
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Neurology→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→