Quantifying hubness to predict surgical outcomes in epilepsy: Assessing resection-hub alignment in interictal intracranial EEG networks.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2024-09-21 DOI:10.1111/epi.18128
Ruxue Gong, Rebecca W Roth, Kaitlyn Hull, Haris Rashid, William A Vandergrift, Alexandra Parashos, Nishant Sinha, Kathryn A Davis, Leonardo Bonilha, Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht
{"title":"Quantifying hubness to predict surgical outcomes in epilepsy: Assessing resection-hub alignment in interictal intracranial EEG networks.","authors":"Ruxue Gong, Rebecca W Roth, Kaitlyn Hull, Haris Rashid, William A Vandergrift, Alexandra Parashos, Nishant Sinha, Kathryn A Davis, Leonardo Bonilha, Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht","doi":"10.1111/epi.18128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intracranial EEG can identify epilepsy-related networks in patients with focal epilepsy; however, the association between network organization and post-surgical seizure outcomes remains unclear. Hubness serves as a critical metric to assess network organization by identifying brain regions that are highly influential to other regions. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that favorable post-operative seizure outcomes are associated with the surgical removal of interictal network hubs, measured by the novel metric \"Resection-Hub Alignment Degree (RHAD).\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed Phase II interictal intracranial EEG from 69 patients with epilepsy who were seizure-free (n = 45) and non-seizure-free (n = 24) 1 year post-operatively. Connectivity matrices were constructed from intracranial EEG recordings using imaginary coherence in various frequency bands, and centrality metrics were applied to identify network hubs. The RHAD metric quantified the congruence between hubs and resected/ablated areas. We used a logistic regression model, incorporating other clinical factors, and evaluated the association of this alignment regarding post-surgical seizure outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant difference in RHAD in fast gamma (80-200 Hz) interictal network between patients with favorable and unfavorable surgical outcomes (p = .025). This finding remained similar across network definitions (i.e., channel-based or region-based network) and centrality measurements (Eigenvector, Closeness, and PageRank). The alignment between surgically removed areas and other commonly used clinical quantitative measures (seizure-onset zone, irritative zone, high-frequency oscillations zone) did not reveal significant differences in post-operative outcomes. This finding suggests that the hubness measurement may offer better predictive performance and finer-grained network analysis. In addition, the RHAD metric showed explanatory validity both alone (area under the curve [AUC] = .66) and in combination with surgical therapy type (resection vs ablation, AUC = .71).</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Our findings underscore the role of network hub surgical removal, measured through the RHAD metric of interictal intracranial EEG high gamma networks, in enhancing our understanding of seizure outcomes in epilepsy surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18128","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Intracranial EEG can identify epilepsy-related networks in patients with focal epilepsy; however, the association between network organization and post-surgical seizure outcomes remains unclear. Hubness serves as a critical metric to assess network organization by identifying brain regions that are highly influential to other regions. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that favorable post-operative seizure outcomes are associated with the surgical removal of interictal network hubs, measured by the novel metric "Resection-Hub Alignment Degree (RHAD)."

Methods: We analyzed Phase II interictal intracranial EEG from 69 patients with epilepsy who were seizure-free (n = 45) and non-seizure-free (n = 24) 1 year post-operatively. Connectivity matrices were constructed from intracranial EEG recordings using imaginary coherence in various frequency bands, and centrality metrics were applied to identify network hubs. The RHAD metric quantified the congruence between hubs and resected/ablated areas. We used a logistic regression model, incorporating other clinical factors, and evaluated the association of this alignment regarding post-surgical seizure outcomes.

Results: There was a significant difference in RHAD in fast gamma (80-200 Hz) interictal network between patients with favorable and unfavorable surgical outcomes (p = .025). This finding remained similar across network definitions (i.e., channel-based or region-based network) and centrality measurements (Eigenvector, Closeness, and PageRank). The alignment between surgically removed areas and other commonly used clinical quantitative measures (seizure-onset zone, irritative zone, high-frequency oscillations zone) did not reveal significant differences in post-operative outcomes. This finding suggests that the hubness measurement may offer better predictive performance and finer-grained network analysis. In addition, the RHAD metric showed explanatory validity both alone (area under the curve [AUC] = .66) and in combination with surgical therapy type (resection vs ablation, AUC = .71).

Significance: Our findings underscore the role of network hub surgical removal, measured through the RHAD metric of interictal intracranial EEG high gamma networks, in enhancing our understanding of seizure outcomes in epilepsy surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
量化枢纽以预测癫痫的手术结果:评估发作间期颅内脑电图网络中的切除-枢纽排列。
目的:颅内脑电图可识别局灶性癫痫患者的癫痫相关网络;然而,网络组织与手术后癫痫发作结果之间的关联仍不清楚。枢纽度(Hubness)是评估网络组织的一个重要指标,它能识别出对其他区域具有高度影响力的脑区。在这项研究中,我们检验了一个假设,即良好的术后癫痫发作结果与发作间期网络枢纽的手术切除有关,该假设用新指标 "切除-枢纽对齐度(RHAD)"来衡量:我们分析了69名癫痫患者的第二阶段发作间期颅内脑电图,这些患者术后1年无癫痫发作(45人)和无癫痫发作(24人)。利用不同频段的假想相干性从颅内脑电图记录中构建连接矩阵,并应用中心度量来识别网络中心。RHAD 指标量化了中心点与切除/钝化区域之间的一致性。我们使用逻辑回归模型,结合其他临床因素,评估了这种排列与手术后癫痫发作结果的关联:结果:手术结果良好和手术结果不佳的患者在快速伽马(80-200 Hz)发作间期网络中的 RHAD 存在明显差异(p = .025)。这一发现在不同的网络定义(即基于通道或基于区域的网络)和中心度测量(特征向量、接近度和 PageRank)中保持相似。手术切除区域与其他常用的临床定量测量(癫痫发作区、刺激区、高频振荡区)之间的吻合并未显示出术后结果的显著差异。这一发现表明,枢纽度测量可能提供更好的预测性能和更精细的网络分析。此外,RHAD 指标在单独使用(曲线下面积 [AUC] = .66)和与手术治疗类型(切除 vs 消融,AUC = .71)结合使用时均显示出解释有效性:我们的研究结果强调了网络中心手术切除(通过发作间期颅内脑电图高伽马网络的RHAD度量)在加深我们对癫痫手术发作结果的理解方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat drug-resistant epilepsy: A randomized, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Histopathological substrate of increased T2 signal in the anterior temporal lobe white matter in temporal lobe epilepsy associated with hippocampal sclerosis. Imaging blood-brain barrier dysfunction in drug-resistant epilepsy: A multi-center feasibility study. Long-term neuroplasticity in language networks after anterior temporal lobe resection. Eating habits and behaviors in children with Dravet syndrome: A case-control study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1