Back

To resect or not to resect? Unbiased performances of single and combined biomarkers in intra-operative corticography for tailoring during epilepsy surgery.

Demuru, M.; Kalitzin, S.; Zweiphenning, W.; van Blooijs, D.; van 't Klooster, M.; Van Eijsden, P.; Leijten, F.; Zijlmans, M.

2019-12-30 neurology
10.1101/2019.12.26.19015883 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveSignal analysis biomarkers, in an intra-operative setting, may be complementary tools to guide and tailor the resection in drug-resistant epilepsy patients. Unbiased assessment of biomarker performances are needed to evaluate their clinical usefulness and translation. We defined a realistic ground-truth scenario and compared the effectiveness of different biomarkers alone and combined to localize epileptogenic tissue. MethodsWe investigated the performances of univariate, bivariate and multivariate signal biomarkers applied to 1 minute inter-ictal intra-operative electrocorticography to discriminate between electrodes covering normal or pathologic activity in 47 drug-resistant people with epilepsy (temporal and extra-temporal) who had been seizure-free one year after the operation. ResultsThe best result using a single biomarker was obtained using the phase-amplitude coupling measure for which the epileptogenic tissue was localized in 16 out of 47 patients. Combining the whole set of biomarkers provided an improvement of the performances: 20 out of 47 patients. Repeating the analysis only on the temporal-lobe resections we reached a sensitivity of 93% (28 out of 30) combining all the biomarkers. ConclusionWe suggest that the assessment of biomarker performances on a ground-truth scenario is required to have a proper estimate on how biomarkers translate into clinical use. Phase-amplitude coupling seems the best performing single biomarker and combining biomarkers improves localization of epileptogenic tissue. However, sensitivity achieved is not adequate for the usage as a tool in the operation theater, but it can improve the understanding of pathophysiological process.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.