MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920388525 · doi:10.60692/v4p7z-3v941

BOLD mapping of human epileptic spikes recorded during simultaneous intracranial EEG-fMRI: The impact of automated spike classification

2019· article· en· W6920388525 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceAutomated methodElectroencephalographySpike (software development)Visual fieldPattern recognition (psychology)ScalpEpilepsyBrain mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simultaneous intracranial EEG and functional MRI (icEEG-fMRI) can be used to map the haemodynamic (BOLD) changes associated with the generation of IEDs. Unlike scalp EEG-fMRI, in most patients who undergo icEEG-fMRI, IEDs recorded intracranially are numerous and show variability in terms of field amplitude and morphology. Therefore, visual marking can be highly subjective and time consuming. In this study, we applied an automated spike classification algorithm, Wave_clus (WC), to IEDs marked visually on icEEG data acquired during simultaneous fMRI acquisition. The motivation of this work is to determine whether using a potentially more consistent and unbiased automated approach can produce more biologically meaningful BOLD patterns compared to the BOLD patterns obtained based on the conventional, visual classification. We analysed simultaneous icEEG-fMRI data from eight patients with severe drug resistant epilepsy, and who subsequently underwent resective surgery that resulted in a good outcome: confirmed epileptogenic zone (EZ). For each patient two fMRI analyses were performed: one based on the conventional visual IED classification and the other based on the automated classification. We used the concordance of the IED-related BOLD maps with the confirmed EZ as an indication of their biological meaning, which we compared for the automated and visual classifications for all IED originating in the EZ. Across the group, the visual and automated classifications resulted in 32 and 24 EZ IED classes respectively, for which 75% vs 83% of the corresponding BOLD maps were concordant. At the single-subject level, the BOLD maps for the automated approach had greater concordance in four patients, and less concordance in one patient, compared to those obtained using the conventional visual classification, and equal concordance for three remaining patients. These differences did not reach statistical significance. We found automated IED classification on icEEG data recorded during fMRI to be feasible and to result in IED-related BOLD maps that may contain similar or greater biological meaning compared to the conventional approach in the majority of the cases studied. We anticipate that this approach will help to gain significant new insights into the brain networks associated with IEDs and in relation to postsurgical 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→