Stephen V Gliske1, Zachary T Irwin2, Kathryn A Davis3, Kinshuk Sahaya4, Cynthia Chestek5, William C Stacey6. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: sgliske@umich.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: irwinz@umich.edu. 3. Department of Neurology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, USA. Electronic address: Kathryn.davis@uphs.upenn.edu. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, USA. Electronic address: ksahaya@uams.edu. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: cchestek@umich.edu. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: william.stacey@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interictal high frequency oscillations (HFOs) in intracranial EEG are a potential biomarker of epilepsy, but current automated HFO detectors require human review to remove artifacts. Our objective is to automatically redact false HFO detections, facilitating clinical use of interictal HFOs. METHODS: Intracranial EEG data from 23 patients were processed with automated detectors of HFOs and artifacts. HFOs not concurrent with artifacts were labeled quality HFOs (qHFOs). Methods were validated by human review on a subset of 2000 events. The correlation of qHFO rates with the seizure onset zone (SOZ) was assessed via (1) a retrospective asymmetry measure and (2) a novel quasi-prospective algorithm to identify SOZ. RESULTS: Human review estimated that less than 12% of qHFOs are artifacts, whereas 78.5% of redacted HFOs are artifacts. The qHFO rate was more correlated with SOZ (p=0.020, Wilcoxon signed rank test) and resected volume (p=0.0037) than baseline detections. Using qHFOs, our algorithm was able to determine SOZ in 60% of the ILAE Class I patients, with all algorithmically-determined SOZs fully within the resected volumes. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm reduced false-positive HFO detections, improving the precision of the HFO-biomarker. SIGNIFICANCE: These methods provide a feasible strategy for HFO detection in real-time, continuous EEG with minimal human monitoring of data quality.
OBJECTIVE: Interictal high frequency oscillations (HFOs) in intracranial EEG are a potential biomarker of epilepsy, but current automated HFO detectors require human review to remove artifacts. Our objective is to automatically redact false HFO detections, facilitating clinical use of interictal HFOs. METHODS: Intracranial EEG data from 23 patients were processed with automated detectors of HFOs and artifacts. HFOs not concurrent with artifacts were labeled quality HFOs (qHFOs). Methods were validated by human review on a subset of 2000 events. The correlation of qHFO rates with the seizure onset zone (SOZ) was assessed via (1) a retrospective asymmetry measure and (2) a novel quasi-prospective algorithm to identify SOZ. RESULTS:Human review estimated that less than 12% of qHFOs are artifacts, whereas 78.5% of redacted HFOs are artifacts. The qHFO rate was more correlated with SOZ (p=0.020, Wilcoxon signed rank test) and resected volume (p=0.0037) than baseline detections. Using qHFOs, our algorithm was able to determine SOZ in 60% of the ILAE Class I patients, with all algorithmically-determined SOZs fully within the resected volumes. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm reduced false-positive HFO detections, improving the precision of the HFO-biomarker. SIGNIFICANCE: These methods provide a feasible strategy for HFO detection in real-time, continuous EEG with minimal human monitoring of data quality.
Authors: Luciana Andrade-Valença; Francesco Mari; Julia Jacobs; Maeike Zijlmans; André Olivier; Jean Gotman; François Dubeau Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Tomoyuki Akiyama; Bláthnaid McCoy; Cristina Y Go; Ayako Ochi; Irene M Elliott; Mari Akiyama; Elizabeth J Donner; Shelly K Weiss; O Carter Snead; James T Rutka; James M Drake; Hiroshi Otsubo Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Justin A Blanco; Matt Stead; Abba Krieger; William Stacey; Douglas Maus; Eric Marsh; Jonathan Viventi; Kendall H Lee; Richard Marsh; Brian Litt; Gregory A Worrell Journal: Brain Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Anatol Bragin; Charles L Wilson; Richard J Staba; Mark Reddick; Itzhak Fried; Jerome Engel Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mark A Kramer; Lauren M Ostrowski; Daniel Y Song; Emily L Thorn; Sally M Stoyell; McKenna Parnes; Dhinakaran Chinappen; Grace Xiao; Uri T Eden; Kevin J Staley; Steven M Stufflebeam; Catherine J Chu Journal: Brain Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Hari Guragain; Jan Cimbalnik; Matt Stead; David M Groppe; Brent M Berry; Vaclav Kremen; Daniel Kenney-Jung; Jeffrey Britton; Gregory A Worrell; Benjamin H Brinkmann Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Jessica K Nadalin; Uri T Eden; Xue Han; R Mark Richardson; Catherine J Chu; Mark A Kramer Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.987
Authors: Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez; Sridevi V Sarma; Adam Li; Chester Huynh; Zachary Fitzgerald; Iahn Cajigas; Damian Brusko; Jonathan Jagid; Angel O Claudio; Andres M Kanner; Jennifer Hopp; Stephanie Chen; Jennifer Haagensen; Emily Johnson; William Anderson; Nathan Crone; Sara Inati; Kareem A Zaghloul; Juan Bulacio Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 24.884