| Literature DB >> 29593641 |
Chuanzuo Yang1, Guoming Luan2,3,4, Qian Wang2,3, Zhao Liu2,3, Feng Zhai2,3, Qingyun Wang1.
Abstract
Patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy are potential candidates for surgery. Stereo-electroencephalograph (SEEG) is often considered as the "gold standard" to identify the epileptogenic zone (EZ) that accounts for the onset and propagation of epileptiform discharges. However, visual analysis of SEEG still prevails in clinical practice. In addition, epilepsy is increasingly understood to be the result of network disorder, but the specific organization of the epileptic network is still unclear. Therefore, it is necessary to quantitatively localize the EZ and investigate the nature of epileptogenic networks. In this study, intracranial recordings from 10 patients were analyzed through adaptive directed transfer function, and the out-degree of effective network was selected as the principal indicator to localize the epileptogenic area. Furthermore, a coupled neuronal population model was used to qualitatively simulate electrical activity in the brain. By removing individual populations, virtual surgery adjusting the network organization could be performed. Results suggested that the accuracy and detection rate of the EZ localization were 82.86 and 85.29%, respectively. In addition, the same stage shared a relatively stable connectivity pattern, while the patterns changed with transition to different processes. Meanwhile, eight cases of simulations indicated that networks in the ictal stage were more likely to generate rhythmic spikes. This indicated the existence of epileptogenic networks, which could enhance local excitability and facilitate synchronization. The removal of the EZ could correct these pathological networks and reduce the amount of spikes by at least 75%. This might be one reason why accurate resection could reduce or even suppress seizures. This study provides novel insights into epilepsy and surgical treatments from the network perspective.Entities:
Keywords: coupled neuronal population model; epileptogenic networks; epileptogenic zone localization; refractory focal epilepsy; stereo-electroencephalograph
Year: 2018 PMID: 29593641 PMCID: PMC5861205 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Clinical patient characteristics.
| Patient | Age (years) | Duration (years) | Side | Electrodes/contacts | Recorded seizures | Pathology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16–20 | 12 | R | 15/124 | 4 | FCD Ia |
| 2 | 6–10 | 5 | L | 11/116 | 6 | FCD Ib |
| 3 | ≤5 | 7/12 | R | 13/122 | 9 | FCD IIa |
| 4 | 6–10 | 1 | L | 10/120 | 101 | FCD IIb + FCD Ic |
| 5 | ≤5 | 3 | R | 10/108 | 2 | FCD Ib |
| 6 | 16–20 | 3 | L and R | 15/119 | 4 | FCD Ib + FCD IIb |
| 7 | 30–35 | 22 | L and R | 9/126 | 9 | HS |
| 8 | 6–10 | 5 | L | 13/116 | 1 | FCD Ib |
| 9 | 26–30 | 12 | L | 8/108 | 5 | HS |
| 10 | 10–15 | 9 | R | 8/117 | 17 | FCD Ib + GMH |
FCD, focal cortical dysplasia; HS, hippocampus sclerosis; GMH, gray matter heterotopia.
Figure 1The recordings of 124 channels are used for testing the performance of Kalman filtering algorithm. Result in the first 3 s is abandoned considering the process of adaption.
Figure 2The schematic diagram illustrates the general framework of methods in this study. Granger causality analysis consists of three steps in the dotted box. Later, the left branch shows the procedures of establishing dynamic effective connectivity. Coupled neuronal population model used for simulations is on the right. Furthermore, two branches are interrelated and unified.
Figure 3(A) The structure of single neuronal population includes three subsets of cells and excitatory and inhibitory connections. (B) Corresponding block diagram representation. S(v) model the saturation effects resulted from average pulse density of action potentials. hEXC, hSDI, and hFSI are the impulse response, respectively, determining the excitatory, the dendritic inhibitory, and the somatic inhibitory average presynaptic potentials. p(t) globally measures the influence of neighboring or distant populations, which is assumed to be Gaussian white noise. C1, C2, …, C7 are the average number of synaptic contacts in the feedback excitatory or inhibitory loop [adapted from Wendling F and Chauvel P with permission from Elsevier (31)].
Figure 4(A) Neuronal populations are coupled by directional weighed edge to come into being a fully connected network. (B) The generation of input and output signals is depicted by taking an example of population i, the internal structure of which is shown in Figure 3B. h is an impulse response function similar to hEXC, hSDI, and hFSI.
Model parameters, interpretation, and standard values.
| Parameter | Interpretation | Standard value |
|---|---|---|
| EXC | Excitatory synaptic gain | 3.25 mV |
| SDI | Slow inhibitory synaptic gain | 22 mV |
| FSI | Fast inhibitory synaptic gain | 20 mV |
| 1/ | Time constant in the feedback excitatory loop | |
| 1/ | Time constant in the slow feedback inhibitory loop | |
| 1/ | Time constant in the fast feedback inhibitory loop | |
| 1/ | Time constant associated to connections | |
| Average number of synaptic contacts in the slow feedback inhibitory loop | ||
| Average number of synaptic contacts in the slow feedback inhibitory loop | ||
| Average number of synaptic contacts in the fast feedback inhibitory loop | ||
| Average number of synaptic contacts between slow and fast inhibitory interneurons |
Calculated results compared with clinical conclusions.
| No. | Calculated result | Stereo-electroencephalograph report | Surgery region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IIP | IP | IIP | IP | A.B. | P.B. | S.B. | I.B. | |
| 1 | D02 | D11, D12 | D11 | D12 | MTG | RF. of CG. on L.Sur. | SMG. to IPS | BT |
| 2 | E04 | E04, J14, M08 | E04 | E04, J13, M05 | 6 cm before PreCS. | PreCS. | L.Sur. | IFS. to CC. |
| 3 | P08, E07 | E07, M04 | P08, E07 | E07, G06 | CS. | PoCS. | L.Sur. | TSF. |
| 4 | L11, H13, I11 | L09, I13, H13 | L11, H13 | L09, H13 | 2 gyri before PreCS. | PreCS. | L.Sur. | SF. |
| 5 | F08, D03 | D03 | F08, D03 | D03 | FP. | CSut. | L.Sur. | SF. |
| 6 | L04 | L04 | L04, H04 | L04 | FP. | CSut. | SFS. | RG. |
| 7 | E10 | C02, D01 | E10 | C02, D01 | Residual tissue | 5.5 cm to TP | Hippo. | Hippo. |
| 8 | G10 | G10 | G10 | G10, H10 | 3 cm to TP | 6 cm to TP | SF. | STS. |
| 9 | A01, B01 | A01, B01, E03 | A01, B01 | A01, B01 | SAH. (amygdala + hippocampus head and 3 cm tail) | |||
| 10 | K09, G11 | K09 | K09, G11 | K09, G11 | FP. | PreCS. | L.Sur. | SF. |
IIP, interictal period; IP, ictal period; A.B., anterior boundary; P.B., posterior boundary; S.B., superior boundary; I.B., inferior boundary; BT., basal surface of temporal lobe; CC., corpus callosum; CG., cuneus gyrus; CS., central sulcus; CSut., coronal suture; FP., frontal pole; Hippo., hippocampus; IFS., inferior frontal sulcus; IPS., inferior parietal sulcus; L.Sur., lateral surface; MTG, medial temporal gyrus; PreCS., precentral sulcus; PoCS., postcentral sulcus; RF., reflection; RG., rectal gyrus; SF., sylvian fissure; SFS., superior frontal sulcus; SMG., superior marginal gyrus; STS., superior temporal sulcus; TP, temporal pole; TSF., tail of sylvian fissure.
Figure 5(A) The upper is a segment of stereo-electroencephalograph data from partial channels. The bottom is the out-degree of each channel with time (only those above 30 are shown). (B) The distribution of mean out-degree in different stages. (C) Diagram of electrodes location for patient No. 2. (D) Diagram of surgery resection region for patient No. 2.
Figure 6(A) Real data of a channel for patient No. 1. The left is in the interictal stages, and the right is in the ictal process without evident pre-ictal stage. (B) Corresponding simulation result based on coupled neuronal population model. (C) Simulation result after removing one channel outside the epileptogenic zone (EZ). (D) Simulation result after removing one channel inside the EZ. (E) The amount of spikes in three conditions (no resection, random resection, and removing the epileptogenic channel) during the simulation process. (F) Stereo-electroencephalograph recording, simulation without resection and simulation after removing one channel inside the EZ for patient No. 2.