Citations

AbstractObjectiveEpilepsy management employs self‐reported seizure diaries, despite evidence of seizure underreporting. Wearable and implantable seizure detection devices are now becoming more widely available. There are no clear guidelines about what levels of accuracy are sufficient. This study aimed to simulate clinical use cases and identify the necessary level of accuracy for each.MethodsUsing a realistic seizure simulator (CHOCOLATES), a ground truth was produced, which was then sampled to generate signals from simulated seizure detectors of various capabilities. Five use cases were evaluated: (1) randomized clinical trials (RCTs), (2) medication adjustment in clinic, (3) injury prevention, (4) sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) prevention, and (5) treatment of seizure clusters. We considered sensitivity (0%–100%), false alarm rate (FAR; 0–2/day), and device type (external wearable vs. implant) in each scenario.ResultsThe RCT case was efficient for a wide range of wearable parameters, though implantable devices were preferred. Lower accuracy wearables resulted in subtle changes in the distribution of patients enrolled in RCTs, and therefore higher sensitivity and lower FAR values were preferred. In the clinic case, a wide range of sensitivity, FAR, and device type yielded similar results. For injury prevention, SUDEP prevention, and seizure cluster treatment, each scenario required high sensitivity and yet was minimally influenced by FAR.SignificanceThe choice of use case is paramount in determining acceptable accuracy levels for a wearable seizure detection device. We offer simulation results for determining and verifying utility for specific use case and specific wearable parameters.

Abstract We evaluated whether spike ripples, the combination of epileptiform spikes and ripples, provide a reliable and improved biomarker for the epileptogenic zone compared with other leading interictal biomarkers in a multicentre, international study. We first validated an automated spike ripple detector on intracranial EEG recordings. We then applied this detector to subjects from four centres who subsequently underwent surgical resection with known 1-year outcomes. We evaluated the spike ripple rate in subjects cured after resection [International League Against Epilepsy Class 1 outcome (ILAE 1)] and those with persistent seizures (ILAE 2–6) across sites and recording types. We also evaluated available interictal biomarkers: spike, spike-gamma, wideband high frequency oscillation (HFO, 80–500 Hz), ripple (80–250 Hz) and fast ripple (250–500 Hz) rates using previously validated automated detectors. The proportion of resected events was computed and compared across subject outcomes and biomarkers. Overall, 109 subjects were included. Most spike ripples were removed in subjects with ILAE 1 outcome (P < 0.001), and this was qualitatively observed across all sites and for depth and subdural electrodes (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Among ILAE 1 subjects, the mean spike ripple rate was higher in the resected volume (0.66/min) than in the non-removed tissue (0.08/min, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of spike ripples were removed in subjects with ILAE 1 outcomes compared with ILAE 2–6 outcomes (P = 0.06). Among ILAE 1 subjects, the proportion of spike ripples removed was higher than the proportion of spikes (P < 0.001), spike-gamma (P < 0.001), wideband HFOs (P < 0.001), ripples (P = 0.009) and fast ripples (P = 0.009) removed. At the individual level, more subjects with ILAE 1 outcomes had the majority of spike ripples removed (79%, 38/48) than spikes (69%, P = 0.12), spike-gamma (69%, P = 0.12), wideband HFOs (63%, P = 0.03), ripples (45%, P = 0.01) or fast ripples (36%, P < 0.001) removed. Thus, in this large, multicentre cohort, when surgical resection was successful, the majority of spike ripples were removed. Furthermore, automatically detected spike ripples localize the epileptogenic tissue better than spikes, spike-gamma, wideband HFOs, ripples and fast ripples.

Summary: EEG source imaging is an established technique for identifying the origin of interictal and ictal epileptiform discharges in patients with epilepsy, and it is an important tool in neurophysiology research. Accurate and reliable EEG source imaging requires appropriate choices of how the head, skull, and scalp are modeled, and understanding of the different approaches to modeling is important to guide these choices. Similarly, numerous different approaches to modeling the electrical sources within the brain exist, and appropriate understanding of the strengths and limitations of each are essential to obtaining accurate, reliable, and interpretable solutions. This review aims to describe the essential theoretical basis for these head and source models while also discussing the practical implications of each in clinical or research applications.