Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34396112›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2021

Electrocorticography and stereo EEG provide distinct measures of brain connectivity: implications for network models.

John M Bernabei, T Campbell Arnold, Preya Shah, Andrew Revell, Ian Z Ong, Lohith G Kini, Joel M Stein, Russell T Shinohara, Timothy H Lucas, Kathryn A Davis and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

John M BernabeiDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3012-1263
T Campbell ArnoldDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-8497
Preya ShahDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Andrew RevellDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0838-4136
Ian Z OngDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9032-9154
Lohith G KiniDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Joel M SteinDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Russell T ShinoharaDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Timothy H LucasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Kathryn A DavisCenter for Neuroengineering & Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Danielle S BassettDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6183-4493
Brian LittDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USSanta Fe Institute · US

Funding

Ghost in the Machine: Melding Brain, Computer and BehaviorDP1NS122038 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LITT, BRIAN · 2020 to 2024
$5.7M
Training Program in Neuroengineering and MedicineT32NS091006 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Brian Litt · 2015 to 2026
$4.1M
Training Program in Biomedical Imaging and Information SciencesT32EB009384 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GEE, JAMES C, IVES, ZACHARY · 2009 to 2023
$4.0M
Optimized Intracranial EEG Targeting in Focal Epilepsy based upon Neuroimaging ConnectomicsR01NS116504 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVIS, KATHRYN ADAMIAK · 2021 to 2025
$3.3M
Virtual Resection to Treat EpilepsyR01NS099348 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BASSETT, DANIELLE SMITH, LITT, BRIAN · 2016 to 2019
$2.3M
Localizing epileptic networks using novel 7T MRI glutamate imagingK23NS092973 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVIS, KATHRYN ADAMIAK · 2016 to 2020
$980k
Virtual Resection to Treat EpilepsyR56NS099348 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BASSETT, DANIELLE SMITH, LITT, BRIAN · 2021 to 2021
$552k
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009384NINDS NIH HHS DP1 NS122038NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS092973NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS099348NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS116504NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS099348NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS091006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain network models derived from graph theory have the potential to guide functional neurosurgery, and to improve rates of post-operative seizure freedom for patients with epilepsy. A barrier to applying these models clinically is that intracranial EEG electrode implantation strategies vary by centre, region and country, from cortical grid & strip electrodes (Electrocorticography), to purely stereotactic depth electrodes (Stereo EEG), to a mixture of both. To determine whether models derived from one type of study are broadly applicable to others, we investigate the differences in brain networks mapped by electrocorticography and stereo EEG in a cohort of patients who underwent surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy and achieved a favourable outcome. We show that networks derived from electrocorticography and stereo EEG define distinct relationships between resected and spared tissue, which may be driven by sampling bias of temporal depth electrodes in patients with predominantly cortical grids. We propose a method of correcting for the effect of internodal distance that is specific to electrode type and explore how additional methods for spatially correcting for sampling bias affect network models. Ultimately, we find that smaller surgical targets tend to have lower connectivity with respect to the surrounding network, challenging notions that abnormal connectivity in the epileptogenic zone is typically high. Our findings suggest that effectively applying computational models to localize epileptic networks requires accounting for the effects of spatial sampling, particularly when analysing both electrocorticography and stereo EEG recordings in the same cohort, and that future network studies of epilepsy surgery should also account for differences in focality between resection and ablation. We propose that these findings are broadly relevant to intracranial EEG network modelling in epilepsy and an important step in translating them clinically into patient care.

Indexed as

brain network modelepilepsyfunctional connectivityintracranial EEG

Identifiers

PMID34396112
PMCPMC8361393
OpenAlexW3192334321

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.