| Literature DB >> 32679553 |
Margherita Carboni1, Pia De Stefano2, Bernd J Vorderwülbecke3, Sebastien Tourbier4, Emeline Mullier4, Maria Rubega5, Shahan Momjian6, Karl Schaller6, Patric Hagmann4, Margitta Seeck2, Christoph M Michel7, Pieter van Mierlo8, Serge Vulliemoz2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy diagnosis can be difficult in the absence of interictal epileptic discharges (IED) on scalp EEG. We used high-density EEG to measure connectivity in large-scale functional networks of patients with focal epilepsy (Temporal and Extratemporal Lobe Epilepsy, TLE and ETLE) and tested for network alterations during resting wakefulness without IEDs, compared to healthy controls. We measured global efficiency as a marker of integration within networks.Entities:
Keywords: Connectivity; Epilepsy; Global Efficiency; Network integration; Resting State
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32679553 PMCID: PMC7363703 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1Summary of the analysis strategy: Hd-EEG and structural MRI (T1 or MPRAGE) were acquired. Around 5000 source-waveforms distributed equally in the grey matter were estimated by a distributed source localization algorithm (LAURA) from the resting state hd-EEG. The head model was based on the individual MRI and parcelled into 82 regions of interest (ROI). The activity in each ROI was summarised with a unique time-series through SVD. Connectivity matrices were estimated through iPDC. Efficiency was calculated for the entire brain and for the 7 resting state networks.
Fig. 2Global Efficiency: (a) controls vs patients (N = 49), (b) controls vs TLE (N = 37) vs ETLE (N = 12), (c) controls vs TLE with Hippocampal sclerosis (TLE HS, N = 20) vs TLE non-lesional (N = 9), (d) controls vs non-lesional (TLE-ETLE) (N = 15), (e) Left TLE (N = 14) vs Right TLE (N = 13). In each boxplot, the central line is the median value, the edges of the boxes are the 75th and the 25th percentiles.
Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (Pos. Pred. Val.) and Negative Predictive Value (Neg. Pred. Val.) for all Patients, TLE and ETLE.
| Patients | TLE | ETLE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 28.50% | 27% | 33.30% |
| Specificity | 93.70% | 93.70% | 93.70% |
| Pos. Pred. Val | 93.30% | 90.90% | 80% |
| Neg. Pred. Val | 30% | 35% | 65% |
Fig. 3Global Efficiency in the different resting state networks for all patients (N = 49) (in red) and controls (in blue). For visualisation, two outliers in the Dorsal Attention Network Patients group have been removed. The central line is the median value, the edges of the boxes are the 75th and the 25th percentiles. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)