Event‐based modeling in temporal lobe epilepsy demonstrates progressive atrophy from cross‐sectional data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Recent work has shown that people with common epilepsies have characteristic patterns of cortical thinning, and that these changes may be progressive over time. Leveraging a large multicenter cross‐sectional cohort, we investigated whether regional morphometric changes occur in a sequential manner, and whether these changes in people with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampal sclerosis (MTLE‐HS) correlate with clinical features. Methods We extracted regional measures of cortical thickness, surface area, and subcortical brain volumes from T1‐weighted (T1W) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans collected by the ENIGMA‐Epilepsy consortium, comprising 804 people with MTLE‐HS and 1625 healthy controls from 25 centers. Features with a moderate case–control effect size (Cohen d ≥ .5) were used to train an event‐based model (EBM), which estimates a sequence of disease‐specific biomarker changes from cross‐sectional data and assigns a biomarker‐based fine‐grained disease stage to individual patients. We tested for associations between EBM disease stage and duration of epilepsy, age at onset, and antiseizure medicine (ASM) resistance. Results In MTLE‐HS, decrease in ipsilateral hippocampal volume along with increased asymmetry in hippocampal volume was followed by reduced thickness in neocortical regions, reduction in ipsilateral thalamus volume, and finally, increase in ipsilateral lateral ventricle volume. EBM stage was correlated with duration of illness (Spearman ρ = .293, p = 7.03 × 10 −16 ), age at onset ( ρ = −.18, p = 9.82 × 10 −7 ), and ASM resistance (area under the curve = .59, p = .043, Mann–Whitney U test). However, associations were driven by cases assigned to EBM Stage 0, which represents MTLE‐HS with mild or nondetectable abnormality on T1W MRI. Significance From cross‐sectional MRI, we reconstructed a disease progression model that highlights a sequence of MRI changes that aligns with previous longitudinal studies. This model could be used to stage MTLE‐HS subjects in other cohorts and help establish connections between imaging‐based progression staging and clinical features.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".