ArticleJournal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society2018
Magnetoencephalographic Mapping of Epileptic Spike Population Using Distributed Source Analysis: Comparison With Intracranial Electroencephalographic Spikes.
Article in Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electromagnetic source imaging predicts surgical outcome in children with focal cortical dysplasia.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Accuracy and spatial properties of distributed magnetic source imaging techniques in the investigation of focal epilepsy patients.Human brain mapping · 2020Article
- Assessing the localization accuracy and clinical utility of electric and magnetic source imaging in children with epilepsy.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study evaluates magnetoencephalographic (MEG) spike population as compared with intracranial electroencephalographic (IEEG) spikes using a quantitative method based on distributed source analysis.
methodsWe retrospectively studied eight patients with medically intractable epilepsy who had an MEG and subsequent IEEG monitoring. Fifty MEG spikes were analyzed in each patient using minimum norm estimate. For individual spikes, each vertex in the source space was considered activated when its source amplitude at the peak latency was higher than a threshold, which was set at 50% of the maximum amplitude over all vertices. We mapped the total count of activation at each vertex. We also analyzed 50 IEEG spikes in the same manner over the intracranial electrodes and created the activation count map. The location of the electrodes was obtained in the MEG source space by coregistering postimplantation computed tomography to MRI. We estimated the MEG- and IEEG-active regions associated with the spike populations using the vertices/electrodes with a count over 25.
resultsThe activation count maps of MEG spikes demonstrated the localization associated with the spike population by variable count values at each vertex. The MEG-active region overlapped with 65 to 85% of the IEEG-active region in our patient group.
conclusionsMapping the MEG spike population is valid for demonstrating the trend of spikes clustering in patients with epilepsy. In addition, comparison of MEG and IEEG spikes quantitatively may be informative for understanding their relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.