ArticleEpilepsia2026
Corticocortical evoked potential amplitude is altered by cortical stimulation in epilepsy.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNeurostimulation is an established therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy, but optimizing stimulation parameters remains a major challenge. Corticocortical evoked potential (CCEP) amplitude may serve as an immediate biomarker of neurostimulation effects, enabling rapid parameter optimization. This study was undertaken to determine whether changes in CCEP amplitude reflect immediate neurostimulation effects.
methodsWe conducted a prospective study in 17 patients undergoing stereoelectroencephalographic monitoring. Each cortical site received randomized 5-s stimulation trains at low (7 Hz) and high (100 Hz) frequencies, preceded and followed by 30-s 1-Hz trains to evoke CCEPs. We analyzed 1210 pre-/posttreatment CCEP pairs using nonparametric tests and linear mixed-effects modeling.
resultsHigh-frequency stimulation produced significantly greater reductions in CCEP amplitude than low-frequency stimulation (median change: -1.6% vs. -.02%, p = .002), independent of total charge and epileptiform activity. These effects persisted for minutes to more than an hour and were most pronounced within the seizure onset zone. In contrast, low-frequency stimulation caused greater reductions in the mesial temporal region. SIGNIFICANCE: Relative changes in CCEP amplitude by high- and low-frequency neurostimulation reflect region-specific effects and may have utility for rapid parameter optimization. These findings highlight a potential strategy to accelerate personalization of neurostimulation therapy for epilepsy.
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.