RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validating EEG, MEG and combined MEG and EEG beamforming for an estimation of the epileptogenic zone in focal cortical dysplasia
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.12.07.21267178
DO 10.1101/2021.12.07.21267178
A1 Neugebauer, Frank
A1 Antonakakis, Marios
A1 Unnwongse, Kanjana
A1 Parpaley, Yaroslav
A1 Wellmer, Jörg
A1 Rampp, Stefan
A1 Wolters, Carsten H.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/07/2021.12.07.21267178.abstract
AB MEG and EEG source analysis is frequently used for the presurgical evaluation of pharma-coresistant epilepsy patients. The source localization of the epileptogenic zone depends, among other aspects, on the selected inverse and forward approaches and their respective parameter choices. In this validation study, we compare for the inverse problem the standard dipole scanning method with two beamformer approaches and we investigate the influence of the covariance estimation method and the strength of regularization on the localization performance for EEG, MEG and combined EEG and MEG. For forward modeling, we investigate the difference between calibrated six-compartment and standard three-compartment head modeling. In a retrospective study of two patients with focal epilepsy due to focal cortical dysplasia type IIb and seizure-freedom following lesionectomy or radiofrequency-guided thermocoagulation, we used the distance of the localization of interictal epileptic spikes to the resection cavity resp. rediofrequency lesion as reference for good localization. We found that beamformer localization can be sensitive to the choice of the regularization parameter, which has to be individually optimized. Estimation of the covariance matrix with averaged spike data yielded more robust results across the modalities. MEG was the dominant modality and provided a good localization in one case, while it was EEG for the other. When combining the modalities, the good results of the dominant modality were mostly not spoiled by the weaker modality. For appropriate regularization parameter choices, the beamformer localized better than the standard dipole scan. Compared to the importance of an appropriate regularization, the sensitivity of the localization to the head modeling was smaller, due to similar skull conductivity modeling and the fixed source space without orientation constraint.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through projectsWO1425/7-1 and RA2062/1-1 and by the Bundesministerium fuer Gesundheit (BMG) as project ZMI1-2521FSB006, under the frame of ERA PerMed as project ERAPERMED2020-227 PerEpi.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The ethics committee of the University of Erlangen, Faculty of Medicine, gave ethical approval for this work on 10510.05.2011 (Ref. No. 4453)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesPatient MRI and EEG/MEG data cannot be given out for privacy reasons.