| Literature DB >> 35992997 |
T A Ishankulov1, G V Danilov2, D I Pitskhelauri3, O Yu Titov4, A A Ogurtsova5, S B Buklina6, E V Gulaev7, T A Konakova8, A E Bykanov9.
Abstract
Intraoperative recording of cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) enables studying effective connections between various functional areas of the cerebral cortex. The fundamental possibility of postoperative speech dysfunction prediction in neurosurgery based on CCEP signal variations could serve as a basis to develop the criteria for the physiological permissibility of intracerebral tumors removal for maximum preservation of the patients' quality of life. The aim of the study was to test the possibility of predicting postoperative speech disorders in patients with glial brain tumors by using the CCEP data recorded intraoperatively before the stage of tumor resection. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; connectome; cortico-cortical evoked potentials; glial tumors; machine learning; neuro-oncology; speech function
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992997 PMCID: PMC9376754 DOI: 10.17691/stm2022.14.1.03
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sovrem Tekhnologii Med ISSN: 2076-4243
Figure 1Number of pre- and post-surgical tests with CCEP recordings:
(a) before the dataset screening by neurophysiologists; (b) after the dataset screening by neurophysiologists
Figure 2Number of tests in each patient
Figure 3Examples of averaged and smoothed signals
The time scale is shown on the abscissa axis, the signal parameters — on the ordinate axis. On each graph, the signal starting index, as well as the minimum and maximum values are indicated. The first 19 ms of the signal duration was used to calculate the moving average with a window of 20 ms; therefore, the first signal value was noted at the 20th ms. Then the index with the first value was shifted to the right (for 1 ms, at least) to remove the artifact
Figure 4Changes in the patient’ speech function after surgery
Classification results obtained upon dividing the data by tests
| Model | CV | Spec | Sens | Prec | Rec | Acc | F1-score | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| RF | 0.743 |
| 0.880 | 0.756 |
| 0.765 | 0.713 |
|
| LR | 0.725 | 0.240 | 0.993 | 0.812 | 0.617 | 0.742 | 0.603 | 0.617 |
| SVM (Lin) | 0.706 | 0.220 | 0.983 | 0.726 | 0.602 | 0.729 | 0.579 | 0.602 |
| SVM (RBF) | 0.754 | 0.303 | 0.995 | 0.831 | 0.649 | 0.764 | 0.645 | 0.649 |
| SVM (Poly) |
| 0.300 |
|
| 0.650 |
| 0.645 | 0.650 |
|
| ||||||||
| RF | 0.751 |
| 0.877 | 0.761 |
| 0.771 |
|
|
| LR | 0.724 | 0.237 |
| 0.807 | 0.617 | 0.743 | 0.601 | 0.617 |
| SVM (Lin) | 0.704 | 0.226 | 0.977 | 0.728 | 0.602 | 0.727 | 0.582 | 0.602 |
| SVM (RBF) | 0.756 | 0.293 | 0.995 | 0.838 | 0.644 | 0.761 | 0.640 | 0.644 |
| SVM (Poly) |
| 0.348 | 0.992 |
| 0.670 |
| 0.671 | 0.670 |
Classification results obtained upon dividing the data by patients
| Model | CV | Spec | Sens | Prec | Rec | Acc | F1-score | AUC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| RF | 0.665 | 0.286 | 0.829 | 0.556 | 0.557 | 0.612 | 0.519 | 0.557 | |||
| LR | 0.700 | 0.155 | 0.971 | 0.559 | 0.563 | 0.649 | 0.492 | 0.563 | |||
| SVM (Lin) | 0.687 | 0.072 | 0.954 | 0.387 | 0.513 | 0.606 | 0.417 | 0.513 | |||
| SVM (RBF) | 0.736 | 0.290 | 0.973 | 0.615 | 0.631 | 0.702 | 0.579 | 0.631 | |||
| SVM (Poly) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| |||||||||||
| RF | 0.680 | 0.319 | 0.809 | 0.569 | 0.564 | 0.606 | 0.530 | 0.564 | |||
| LR | 0.687 | 0.168 | 0.965 | 0.555 | 0.566 | 0.649 | 0.500 | 0.566 | |||
| SVM (Lin) | 0.674 | 0.098 | 0.944 | 0.411 | 0.521 | 0.612 | 0.432 | 0.521 | |||
| SVM (RBF) | 0.730 | 0.324 | 0.973 | 0.649 | 0.649 | 0.716 | 0.604 | 0.649 | |||
| SVM (Poly) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||