ArticleBrain topography2020
Towards the Automatic Localization of the Irritative Zone Through Magnetic Source Imaging.
Article in Brain topography, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetoencephalography for Epilepsy Presurgical Evaluation.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- The SESAMEEG package: a probabilistic tool for source localization and uncertainty quantification in M/EEG.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- An F-ratio-based method for estimating the number of active sources in MEG.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Clinical Validation of the Champagne Algorithm for Evoked Response Source Localization in Magnetoencephalography.Brain topography · 2022Article
- Specific Oscillatory Power Changes and Their Efficacy for Determining Laterality in Mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy: A Magnetoencephalographic Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Clinical Validation of the Champagne Algorithm for Epilepsy Spike Localization.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present work aims at validating a Bayesian multi-dipole modeling algorithm (SESAME) in the clinical scenario consisting of localizing the generators of single interictal epileptiform discharges from resting state magnetoencephalographic recordings. We use the results of Equivalent Current Dipole fitting, performed by an expert user, as a benchmark, and compare the results of SESAME with those of two widely used source localization methods, RAP-MUSIC and wMNE. In addition, we investigate the relation between post-surgical outcome and concordance of the surgical plan with the cerebral lobes singled out by the methods. Unlike dipole fitting, the tested algorithms do not rely on any subjective channel selection and thus contribute towards making source localization more unbiased and automatic. We show that the two dipolar methods, SESAME and RAP-MUSIC, generally agree with dipole fitting in terms of identified cerebral lobes and that the results of the former are closer to the fitted equivalent current dipoles than those of the latter. In addition, for all the tested methods and particularly for SESAME, concordance with surgical plan is a good predictor of seizure freedom while discordance is not a good predictor of poor post-surgical outcome. The results suggest that the dipolar methods, especially SESAME, represent a reliable and more objective alternative to manual dipole fitting for clinical applications in the field of epilepsy surgery.
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.