ArticleArXiv2023
Quantifying interictal intracranial EEG to predict focal epilepsy.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Intracranial EEG (IEEG) is used for 2 main purposes, to determine: (1) if epileptic networks are amenable to focal treatment and (2) where to intervene. Currently these questions are answered qualitatively and sometimes differently across centers. There is a need for objective, standardized methods to guide surgical decision making and to enable large scale data analysis across centers and prospective clinical trials. Methods: We analyzed interictal data from 101 patients with drug resistant epilepsy who underwent presurgical evaluation with IEEG. We chose interictal data because of its potential to reduce the morbidity and cost associated with ictal recording. 65 patients had unifocal seizure onset on IEEG, and 36 were non-focal or multi-focal. We quantified the spatial dispersion of implanted electrodes and interictal IEEG abnormalities for each patient. We compared these measures against the "5 Sense Score (5SS)," a pre-implant estimate of the likelihood of focal seizure onset, and assessed their ability to predict the clinicians' choice of therapeutic intervention and the patient outcome. Results: The spatial dispersion of IEEG electrodes predicted network focality with precision similar to the 5SS (AUC = 0.67), indicating that electrode placement accurately reflected pre-implant information. A cross-validated model combining the 5SS and the spatial dispersion of interictal IEEG abnormalities significantly improved this prediction (AUC = 0.79; p<0.05). The combined model predicted ultimate treatment strategy (surgery vs. device) with an AUC of 0.81 and post-surgical outcome at 2 years with an AUC of 0.70. The 5SS, interictal IEEG, and electrode placement were not correlated and provided complementary information. Conclusions: Quantitative, interictal IEEG significantly improved upon pre-implant estimates of network focality and predicted treatment with precision approaching that of clinical experts. We present this study as an important step in building standardized, quantitative tools to guide epilepsy surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37547655PMC10402195W4385620748What 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.