Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26220742›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2016

Dynamic causal modelling of electrographic seizure activity using Bayesian belief updating.

Gerald K Cooray, Biswa Sengupta, Pamela K Douglas, Karl Friston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. NMDA-receptor antibodies alter cortical microcircuit dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Seizure pathways: A model-based investigation.PLoS computational biology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Neuronal network models of epileptogenesis.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gerald K CoorayWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK; Clinical Neurophysiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: gerald.cooray@ki.se.
Biswa SenguptaWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
Pamela K DouglasWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
Karl FristonWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088130Wellcome Trust 088130/Z/09/ZWellcome Trust 091593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seizure activity in EEG recordings can persist for hours with seizure dynamics changing rapidly over time and space. To characterise the spatiotemporal evolution of seizure activity, large data sets often need to be analysed. Dynamic causal modelling (DCM) can be used to estimate the synaptic drivers of cortical dynamics during a seizure; however, the requisite (Bayesian) inversion procedure is computationally expensive. In this note, we describe a straightforward procedure, within the DCM framework, that provides efficient inversion of seizure activity measured with non-invasive and invasive physiological recordings; namely, EEG/ECoG. We describe the theoretical background behind a Bayesian belief updating scheme for DCM. The scheme is tested on simulated and empirical seizure activity (recorded both invasively and non-invasively) and compared with standard Bayesian inversion. We show that the Bayesian belief updating scheme provides similar estimates of time-varying synaptic parameters, compared to standard schemes, indicating no significant qualitative change in accuracy. The difference in variance explained was small (less than 5%). The updating method was substantially more efficient, taking approximately 5-10min compared to approximately 1-2h. Moreover, the setup of the model under the updating scheme allows for a clear specification of how neuronal variables fluctuate over separable timescales. This method now allows us to investigate the effect of fast (neuronal) activity on slow fluctuations in (synaptic) parameters, paving a way forward to understand how seizure activity is generated.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalBayes TheoremBrainElectroencephalographyHumansSeizuresBayesian belief updatingDynamic causal modelling (DCM)EEG/ECoGEpilepsySeizure activity

Identifiers

PMID26220742
PMCPMC4692455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.