4.7 Article

Graph theoretical measures of fast ripple networks improve the accuracy of post-operative seizure outcome prediction

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-27248-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fast ripples (FR) are a biomarker of epileptogenic brain. The FR resection ratio (RR) did not correlate with seizure-outcome, but the FR rate-distance radius resected difference and the FR MI mean characteristic path length RR did correlate with seizure-outcome. The diagnostic accuracy of the resection of FR events for predicting seizure freedom can be improved by using graph theoretical measures of FR networks.
Fast ripples (FR) are a biomarker of epileptogenic brain, but when larger portions of FR generating regions are resected seizure freedom is not always achieved. To evaluate and improve the diagnostic accuracy of FR resection for predicting seizure freedom we compared the FR resection ratio (RR) with FR network graph theoretical measures. In 23 patients FR were semi-automatically detected and quantified in stereo EEG recordings during sleep. MRI normalization and co-registration localized contacts and relation to resection margins. The number of FR, and graph theoretical measures, which were spatial (i.e., FR rate-distance radius) or temporal correlational (i.e., FR mutual information), were compared with the resection margins and with seizure outcome We found that the FR RR did not correlate with seizure-outcome (p > 0.05). In contrast, the FR rate-distance radius resected difference and the FR MI mean characteristic path length RR did correlate with seizure-outcome (p < 0.05). Retesting of positive FR RR patients using either FR rate-distance radius resected difference or the FR MI mean characteristic path length RR reduced seizure-free misclassifications from 44 to 22% and 17%, respectively. These results indicate that graph theoretical measures of FR networks can improve the diagnostic accuracy of the resection of FR events for predicting seizure freedom.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据