Aaron M Spring1, Daniel J Pittman2, Yahya Aghakhani3, Jeffrey Jirsch4, Neelan Pillay5, Luis E Bello-Espinosa6, Colin Josephson7, Paolo Federico8. 1. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: amspring@ucalgary.ca. 2. Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: djpittman@me.com. 3. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: Yahya.Agha-Khani@albertahealthservices.ca. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Electronic address: jirsch@ualberta.ca. 5. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: pillay@ucalgary.ca. 6. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Paediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: Luis.Bello@albertahealthservices.ca. 7. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: colin.josephson@gmail.com. 8. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Seaman Family MR Research Centre, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: pfederic@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High frequency oscillations (HFOs) and interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) have been shown to be markers of epileptogenic regions. However, there is currently no 'gold standard' for identifying HFOs. Accordingly, we aimed to formally characterize the interrater reliability of HFO markings to validate the current practices. METHODS: A morphology detector was implemented to detect events (candidate HFOs, lower-threshold events, and distractors) from the intracranial EEG (iEEG) of ten patients. Six electroencephalographers visually evaluated these events for the presence of HFOs and IEDs. Interrater reliability was calculated using pairwise Cohen's Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The HFO evaluation distributions were significantly different for most pairs of reviewers (p<0.05; 11/15 pairs). Interrater reliability was poor for HFOs alone (κmean=0.403; ICC=0.401) and HFO+IEDs (κmean=0.568; ICC=0.570). CONCLUSIONS: The current practice of using two visual reviewers to identify HFOs is prone to bias arising from the poor agreement between reviewers, limiting the extrinsic validity of studies using these markers. SIGNIFICANCE: The poor interrater reliability underlines the need for a framework to reconcile the important findings of existing studies. The present epoched design is an ideal candidate for the implementation of such a framework. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: High frequency oscillations (HFOs) and interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) have been shown to be markers of epileptogenic regions. However, there is currently no 'gold standard' for identifying HFOs. Accordingly, we aimed to formally characterize the interrater reliability of HFO markings to validate the current practices. METHODS: A morphology detector was implemented to detect events (candidate HFOs, lower-threshold events, and distractors) from the intracranial EEG (iEEG) of ten patients. Six electroencephalographers visually evaluated these events for the presence of HFOs and IEDs. Interrater reliability was calculated using pairwise Cohen's Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The HFO evaluation distributions were significantly different for most pairs of reviewers (p<0.05; 11/15 pairs). Interrater reliability was poor for HFOs alone (κmean=0.403; ICC=0.401) and HFO+IEDs (κmean=0.568; ICC=0.570). CONCLUSIONS: The current practice of using two visual reviewers to identify HFOs is prone to bias arising from the poor agreement between reviewers, limiting the extrinsic validity of studies using these markers. SIGNIFICANCE: The poor interrater reliability underlines the need for a framework to reconcile the important findings of existing studies. The present epoched design is an ideal candidate for the implementation of such a framework. Copyright Â
Authors: Cesar Santana-Gomez; Pedro Andrade; Matthew R Hudson; Tomi Paananen; Robert Ciszek; Gregory Smith; Idrish Ali; Brian K Rundle; Xavier Ekolle Ndode-Ekane; Pablo M Casillas-Espinosa; Riikka Immonen; Noora Puhakka; Nigel Jones; Rhys D Brady; Piero Perucca; Sandy R Shultz; Asla Pitkänen; Terence J O'Brien; Richard Staba Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Aljoscha Thomschewski; Nathalie Gerner; Patrick B Langthaler; Eugen Trinka; Arne C Bathke; Jürgen Fell; Yvonne Höller Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Kathryn A Davis; Seth P Devries; Abba Krieger; Temenuzhka Mihaylova; Daniela Minecan; Brian Litt; Joost B Wagenaar; William C Stacey Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.708
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