| Literature DB >> 33772952 |
Radek Mareček1, Pavel Říha1,2, Michaela Bartoňová1,2, Martin Kojan1,2,3, Martin Lamoš1, Martin Gajdoš1, Lubomír Vojtíšek1, Michal Mikl1, Marek Bartoň1, Irena Doležalová3, Martin Pail3, Ondřej Strýček1,2,3, Marta Pažourková3, Milan Brázdil1,3, Ivan Rektor1,3.
Abstract
Many methods applied to data acquired by various imaging modalities have been evaluated for their benefit in localizing lesions in magnetic resonance (MR) negative epilepsy patients. No approach has proven to be a stand-alone method with sufficiently high sensitivity and specificity. The presented study addresses the potential benefit of the automated fusion of results of individual methods in presurgical evaluation. We collected electrophysiological, MR, and nuclear imaging data from 137 patients with pharmacoresistant MR-negative/inconclusive focal epilepsy. A subgroup of 32 patients underwent surgical treatment with known postsurgical outcomes and histopathology. We employed a Gaussian mixture model to reveal several classes of gray matter tissue. Classes specific to epileptogenic tissue were identified and validated using the surgery subgroup divided into two disjoint sets. We evaluated the classification accuracy of the proposed method at a voxel-wise level and assessed the effect of individual methods. The training of the classifier resulted in six classes of gray matter tissue. We found a subset of two classes specific to tissue located in resected areas. The average classification accuracy (i.e., the probability of correct classification) was significantly higher than the level of chance in the training group (0.73) and even better in the validation surgery subgroup (0.82). Nuclear imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and source localization of interictal epileptic discharges were the strongest methods for classification accuracy. We showed that the automatic fusion of results can identify brain areas that show epileptogenic gray matter tissue features. The method might enhance the presurgical evaluations of MR-negative epilepsy patients.Entities:
Keywords: data fusion; neuroimaging; nonlesional epilepsy; seizure onset zone
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33772952 PMCID: PMC8127142 DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Brain Mapp ISSN: 1065-9471 Impact factor: 5.038
Details on study groups
| # Subjects | Age (years) median (Q2–Q3) | Gender M/F | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 137 | 33 (25–39) | 78/59 |
| TRG | 126 | 33 (25–39) | 74/52 |
| TEGA | 17 | 30 (21–39) | 13/4 |
| TEGB | 11 | 33 (25–44) | 4/7 |
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; TEGA, testing Group A; TEGB, testing Group B; TRG, training group; Q, quartile.
FIGURE 1The details on grouping of patients. NRES, nonresected; RES, resected; H+, positive histology; H−, negative histology; TRG, training group; TEGA, testing Group A; TEGB, testing Group B; the numbers denote number of patients in each group
The list of methods
| Abbreviation | Modality | Method | Interpretation from the patient data perspective, relative to HC (excluding IED) |
|---|---|---|---|
| GMC | MR | Local gray matter concentration | Increase: Alterations in intensity of gray matter in structural images |
| GMV | MR | Local gray matter volume | Decrease: Gray matter atrophy |
| JUN | MR | Gray–white matter boundary blurring | Increase: Augmented intensity gradient between gray and white matter in structural images |
| ASL | MR | Quantified cerebral blood flow | Decrease: Decreased perfusion |
| IED | HDEEG | Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges | |
| PET | PET | Metabolism alteration | Decrease: Hypometabolism |
| SPE | SPECT | STATISCOM—Evaluation of ictal vs. interictal perfusion | Increase: Source of early ictal activity |
| FA | MR | FA | Decrease: Decrease in directionality of molecule diffusion, unspecific microstructure alterations |
| MD | MR | MD | Increase: Enhancement of molecule diffusion, unspecific microstructure alterations |
| MK | MR | MK | Decrease: Enhancement of molecule diffusion due to loosing barriers, unspecific microstructure alterations |
Abbreviations: ASL, arterial spin labeling; FA, fraction anisotropy; GMC, gray matter concentration; GMV, gray matter volume; HDEEG, high density electroencephalography; IED, interictal epileptic discharges; JUN, junction; MD, mean diffusivity; MK, mean kurtosis; MR, magnetic resonance; PET, positron emission tomography; SPE, single proton emission. SPECT, single‐proton emission computed tomography; STATISCOM, statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI.
FIGURE 2Epileptogenic gray matter tissue classes C2 (red dots) and C4 (violet dots). The upper plot depicts each method's deviation from the healthy control norm in terms of T values. The lower plot depicts normalized current density estimated by source localization of interictal epilepsy discharges. The dots and lines depict mean and SD of the distribution over training voxels belonging to each respective class. For abbreviations, please see Table 2
FIGURE 3Results of voxel classification in patients with ENGEL I surgery outcome and proven pathology (11 subjects from the testing group). The images show voxels belonging to epileptogenic gray matter tissue classes (C2 and C4; voxels where the highest probability had C2 are in orange and C4 are in violet; threshold set to show 1% voxels with highest values). The surgery extent is delineated by a yellow line. The top row shows cases with proven hippocampal sclerosis, the bottom row at left are cases with focal cortical dysplasia, and the rest are cases with gliosis
(a) Decrease of classification accuracy in simulated situations with missing methods. The simulated missing PET significantly decreased classification accuracy (one‐sample T test; p < .05, Bonf. corrected, df =27). (b) Effect of each method on classification accuracy. (c) Effect of each method on classification accuracy with discarded data from nuclear imaging methods. For (b) and (c), the denoted methods significantly increase the accuracy (linear mixed effect model, p < .05, Bonf. corrected, df = 8,793). On average, the classification accuracy is better than chance as represented by significant effect of intercept
| Method | Intercept | GMC | GMV | JUN | ASL | IED | PET | SPE | FA | MD | MK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | EE | — | 0.006 | −0.008 | 0.003 | 0.034 | −0.053 | −0.056 | −0.015 | 0.002 | −0.013 | 0.002 |
|
| — | .34 | .52 | .58 | .02 | .34 |
| .20 | .82 | .25 | .77 | |
| (b) | EE | 0.140 | −0.001 | 0.007 | <0.001 | −0.062 | 0.048 | 0.076 | 0.043 | −0.006 | 0.047 | −0.003 |
|
|
| .92 | .55 | .99 | .01 | .22 |
|
| .68 |
| .69 | |
| (c) | EE | 0.110 | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.006 | −0.022 | 0.154 | — | — | 0.012 | 0.069 | 0.001 |
|
|
| .76 | .45 | .57 | .11 |
| — | — | .51 |
| — | |
Note: All significant p‐values are in bold.
Abbreviations: ASL, arterial spin labeling; EE, effect's estimate; FA, fraction anisotropy; GMC, gray matter concentration; GMV, gray matter volume; IED, interictal epileptic discharges; JUN, junction; MD, mean diffusivity; MK, mean kurtosis; PET, positron emission tomography; SPE, single proton emission.