Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31632339›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2019

Quantification and Selection of Ictogenic Zones in Epilepsy Surgery.

Petroula Laiou, Eleftherios Avramidis, Marinho A Lopes, Eugenio Abela, Michael Müller, Ozgur E Akman, Mark P Richardson, Christian Rummel, Kaspar Schindler, Marc Goodfellow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Bifurcations and bursting in the Epileptor.PLoS computational biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A computational biomarker of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy from resting-state MEG.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

10 authors.

Petroula LaiouLiving Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Eleftherios AvramidisResearch Computing Services, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Marinho A LopesLiving Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Eugenio AbelaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael MüllerSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Ozgur E AkmanCollege of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Mark P RichardsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christian RummelSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Kaspar SchindlerDepartment of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marc GoodfellowLiving Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K013998/1Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network models of brain dynamics provide valuable insight into the healthy functioning of the brain and how this breaks down in disease. A pertinent example is the use of network models to understand seizure generation (ictogenesis) in epilepsy. Recently, computational models have emerged to aid our understanding of seizures and to predict the outcome of surgical perturbations to brain networks. Such approaches provide the opportunity to quantify the effect of removing regions of tissue from brain networks and thereby search for the optimal resection strategy. Here, we use computational models to elucidate how sets of nodes contribute to the ictogenicity of networks. In small networks we fully elucidate the ictogenicity of all possible sets of nodes and demonstrate that the distribution of ictogenicity across sets depends on network topology. However, the full elucidation is a combinatorial problem that becomes intractable for large networks. Therefore, we combine computational models with a genetic algorithm to search for minimal sets of nodes that contribute significantly to ictogenesis. We demonstrate the potential applicability of these methods in practice by identifying optimal sets of nodes to resect in networks derived from 20 individuals who underwent resective surgery for epilepsy. We show that they have the potential to aid epilepsy surgery by suggesting alternative resection sites as well as facilitating the avoidance of brain regions that should not be resected.

Indexed as

brain networksepilepsy surgerygenetic algorithmgraph theoryictogenesisoptimization

Identifiers

PMID31632339
PMCPMC6779811

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.