Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34823159›Full record

ArticleEpilepsy research2021

Automated preprocessing and phase-amplitude coupling analysis of scalp EEG discriminates infantile spasms from controls during wakefulness.

Makoto Miyakoshi, Hiroki Nariai, Rajsekar R Rajaraman, Danilo Bernardo, Daniel W Shrey, Beth A Lopour, Myung Shin Sim, Richard J Staba, Shaun A Hussain

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsy research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hyper-extralemniscal model of Fragile X syndrome.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Article
  6. Computational EEG attributes predict response to therapy for epileptic spasms.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Makoto MiyakoshiSwartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego, United States.
Hiroki NariaiDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, United States. Electronic address: hnariai@mednet.ucla.edu.
Rajsekar R RajaramanDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, United States.
Danilo BernardoUCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, United States.
Daniel W ShreyChildren's Hospital of Orange County, Neurology, University of California, Irvine, Pediatrics, United States.
Beth A LopourHenry Samueli School of Engineering, University of California Irvine, United States.
Myung Shin SimDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California Los Angeles, United States.
Richard J StabaDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, United States.
Shaun A HussainDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, United States.
University of California, Los Angeles · USSamueli Institute · USUCSF Benioff Children's Hospital · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

EEGLAB: Software for Analysis of Human Brain DynamicsR01NS047293 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Arnaud Delorme, Scott Makeig · 2004 to 2026
$10.2M
Defining the Epileptogenic Network and Identifying Which Components Generate SeizuresR01NS106957 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Richard Staba · 2018 to 2026
$3.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS047293NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS106957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDelta-gamma phase-amplitude coupling in EEG is useful for localizing epileptic sources and to evaluate severity in children with infantile spasms. We (1) develop an automated EEG preprocessing pipeline to clean data using artifact subspace reconstruction (ASR) and independent component (IC) analysis (ICA) and (2) evaluate delta-gamma modulation index (MI) as a method to distinguish children with epileptic spasms (cases) from normal controls during sleep and awake.

methodsUsing 400 scalp EEG datasets (200 sleep, 200 awake) from 100 subjects, we calculated MI after applying high-pass and line-noise filters (Clean 0), and after ASR followed by either conservative (Clean 1) or stringent (Clean 2) artifactual IC rejection. Classification of cases and controls using MI was evaluated with Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) to obtain area under curve (AUC).

resultsThe artifact rejection algorithm reduced raw signal variance by 29-45% and 38-60% for Clean 1 and Clean 2, respectively. MI derived from sleep data, with or without preprocessing, robustly classified the groups (all AUC > 0.98). In contrast, group classification using MI derived from awake data was successful only after Clean 2 (AUC = 0.85).

conclusionsWe have developed an automated EEG preprocessing pipeline to perform artifact rejection and quantify delta-gamma modulation index.

Indexed as

Spasms, InfantileWakefulnessAlgorithmsArtifactsChildElectroencephalographyHumansScalpSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSpasmArtifact rejectionArtifact subspace reconstructionEEGIndependent component analysisPhase-amplitude couplingPreprocessing

Identifiers

PMID34823159
PMCPMC12289543
OpenAlexW3211545121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.