MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117124022 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.19.695626

DIME: Data-driven Importance MEtric Guides Localization of the Seizure Onset Zone from Intracranial EEG Data

2025· article· W7117124022 on OpenAlexaff
Alan A. Díaz-Montiel, Nooshin Bahador, Milad Lankarany

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsKrembil Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)EpilepsyPipeline (software)Epilepsy surgeryIntractable epilepsyRecallBiomarkerElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Epilepsy affects over 50 million individuals, many of whom require surgical treatment that is dependent on accurate localization of the seizure onset zone (SOZ). Conventional SOZ biomarkers are based on strictly defined intracranial electroen-cephalography (iEEG) phenomena and cannot benefit from increased datasets. The scarcity of SOZ-labeled iEEG data impedes biomarker development. We introduce the Data-driven Importance MEtric (DIME) to guide SOZ localization in an interpretable pipeline that improves with ictal-labeled iEEG data. We apply DIME to an open-source dataset (n=21; 13 successful; 8 failed) for SOZ localization and surgical outcome prediction. The highest DIME-ranked electrode belonged to the clinically annotated SOZ for 69.2% of patients with successful surgery ( p < 0.001 ). DIME scores were significantly higher in SOZ electrodes than nonSOZ electrodes in both successful and failed surgeries ( p < 0.001 ), though the DIME distribution for successful cases differed from failed cases ( p = 0.002 ). DIME predicted surgical outcome with 92.3% recall and 66.7% accuracy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→