Search

Network neuroscience applied to epilepsy holds promise to map pathological networks, localize seizure generators, and inform targeted interventions to control seizures. However, incomplete sampling of the epileptic brain because of sparse placement of intracranial electrodes may affect model results. In this study, we evaluate the sensitivity of several published network measures to incomplete spatial sampling and propose an algorithm using network subsampling to determine confidence in model results. We retrospectively evaluated intracranial EEG data from 28 patients implanted with grid, strip, and depth electrodes during evaluation for epilepsy surgery. We recalculated global and local network metrics after randomly and systematically removing subsets of intracranial EEG electrode contacts. We found that sensitivity to incomplete sampling varied significantly across network metrics. This sensitivity was largely independent of whether seizure onset zone contacts were targeted or spared from removal. We present an algorithm using random subsampling to compute patient-specific confidence intervals for network localizations. Our findings highlight the difference in robustness between commonly used network metrics and provide tools to assess confidence in intracranial network localization. We present these techniques as an important step toward translating personalized network models of seizures into rigorous, quantitative approaches to invasive therapy.

ObjectiveDespite the overall success of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy, clinical outcomes in individuals vary significantly and are hard to predict. Biomarkers that indicate the clinical efficacy of RNS-ideally before device implantation-are critically needed, but challenges include the intrinsic heterogeneity of the RNS patient population and variability in clinical management across epilepsy centers. The aim of this study is to use a multicenter dataset to evaluate a candidate biomarker from intracranial electroencephalographic (iEEG) recordings that predicts clinical outcome with subsequent RNS therapy.MethodsWe assembled a federated dataset of iEEG recordings, collected prior to RNS implantation, from a retrospective cohort of 30 patients across three major epilepsy centers. Using ictal iEEG recordings, each center independently calculated network synchronizability, a candidate biomarker indicating the susceptibility of epileptic brain networks to RNS therapy.ResultsIctal measures of synchronizability in the high-γ band (95-105 Hz) significantly distinguish between good and poor RNS responders after at least 3 years of therapy under the current RNS therapy guidelines (area under the curve = .83). Additionally, ictal high-γ synchronizability is inversely associated with the degree of therapeutic response.SignificanceThis study provides a proof-of-concept roadmap for collaborative biomarker evaluation in federated data, where practical considerations impede full data sharing across centers. Our results suggest that network synchronizability can help predict therapeutic response to RNS therapy. With further validation, this biomarker could facilitate patient selection and help avert a costly, invasive intervention in patients who are unlikely to benefit.

Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy often require surgery to become seizure-free. While laser ablation and implantable stimulation devices have lowered the morbidity of these procedures, seizure-free rates have not dramatically improved, particularly for patients without focal lesions. This is in part because it is often unclear where to intervene in these cases. To address this clinical need, several research groups have published methods to map epileptic networks but applying them to improve patient care remains a challenge. In this study we advance clinical translation of these methods by: (i) presenting and sharing a robust pipeline to rigorously quantify the boundaries of the resection zone and determining which intracranial EEG electrodes lie within it; (ii) validating a brain network model on a retrospective cohort of 28 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy implanted with intracranial electrodes prior to surgical resection; and (iii) sharing all neuroimaging, annotated electrophysiology, and clinical metadata to facilitate future collaboration. Our network methods accurately forecast whether patients are likely to benefit from surgical intervention based on synchronizability of intracranial EEG (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89) and provide novel information that traditional electrographic features do not. We further report that removing synchronizing brain regions is associated with improved clinical outcome, and postulate that sparing desynchronizing regions may further be beneficial. Our findings suggest that data-driven network-based methods can identify patients likely to benefit from resective or ablative therapy, and perhaps prevent invasive interventions in those unlikely to do so.

Introduction: Intracranial EEG (IEEG) is used for 2 main purposes, to determine: (1) if epileptic networks are amenable to focal treatment and (2) where to intervene. Currently these questions are answered qualitatively and sometimes differently across centers. There is a need for objective, standardized methods to guide surgical decision making and to enable large scale data analysis across centers and prospective clinical trials., Methods: We analyzed interictal data from 101 patients with drug resistant epilepsy who underwent presurgical evaluation with IEEG. We chose interictal data because of its potential to reduce the morbidity and cost associated with ictal recording. 65 patients had unifocal seizure onset on IEEG, and 36 were non-focal or multi-focal. We quantified the spatial dispersion of implanted electrodes and interictal IEEG abnormalities for each patient. We compared these measures against the "5 Sense Score (5SS)," a pre-implant estimate of the likelihood of focal seizure onset, and assessed their ability to predict the clinicians' choice of therapeutic intervention and the patient outcome., Results: The spatial dispersion of IEEG electrodes predicted network focality with precision similar to the 5SS (AUC = 0.67), indicating that electrode placement accurately reflected pre-implant information. A cross-validated model combining the 5SS and the spatial dispersion of interictal IEEG abnormalities significantly improved this prediction (AUC = 0.79; p<0.05). The combined model predicted ultimate treatment strategy (surgery vs. device) with an AUC of 0.81 and post-surgical outcome at 2 years with an AUC of 0.70. The 5SS, interictal IEEG, and electrode placement were not correlated and provided complementary information., Conclusions: Quantitative, interictal IEEG significantly improved upon pre-implant estimates of network focality and predicted treatment with precision approaching that of clinical experts. We present this study as an important step in building standardized, quantitative tools to guide epilepsy surgery.

Mouse models are widely used in studies of various forms of transcranial electric stimulation (TES). However, there is limited knowledge of the electric field distribution induced by TES in mice, and computational models to estimate this distribution are lacking. This study examines the electric field and current density distribution in the mouse brain induced by TES. We created a high-resolution finite element mouse model incorporating ear clip electrodes commonly used in mouse TES to study, for example, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The electric field strength and current density induced by an ear clip electrode configuration were computed in the anatomically realistic, inhomogenous mouse model. The results show that the median electric field strength induced in the brain at 1 mA of stimulus current is 5.57 V/m, and the strongest field of 20.19 V/m was observed in the cerebellum. Therefore, to match the median electric field in human ECT at 800 mA current, the electrode current in mouse should be set to approximately 15 mA. However, the location of the strongest electric field in posterior brain regions in the mouse does not model well human ECT which targets more frontal regions. Therefore, the ear clip electrode configuration may not be a good model of human ECT. Using high-resolution realistic models for simulating TES in mice may guide the establishment of appropriate stimulation parameters for future in vivo studies.