Metrics for evaluation of automatic epileptogenic zone localization in intracranial electrophysiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Precise localization of the epileptogenic zone is critical for successful epilepsy surgery. However, imbalanced datasets in terms of epileptic vs. normal electrode contacts and a lack of standardized evaluation guidelines hinder the consistent evaluation of automatic machine learning localization models. METHODS: This study addresses these challenges by analyzing class imbalance in clinical datasets and evaluating common assessment metrics. Data from 139 drug-resistant epilepsy patients across two Institutions were analyzed. Metric behaviors were examined using clinical and simulated data. RESULTS: Complementary use of Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) and Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) provides an optimal evaluation approach. This must be paired with an analysis of class imbalance and its impact due to significant variations found in clinical datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework offers a comprehensive and reliable method for evaluating machine learning models in epileptogenic zone localization, improving their precision and clinical relevance. SIGNIFICANCE: Adopting this framework will improve the comparability and multicenter testing of machine learning models in epileptogenic zone localization, enhancing their reliability and ultimately leading to better surgical outcomes for epilepsy patients.
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 | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".