Cited by 483Epilepsy research and treatmentEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Machine learning–XGBoost analysis of language networks to classify patients with epilepsy

Open access
Torlay, L., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Thomas, E., Baciu, M.·2017·Brain Informatics

Abstract

Our goal was to apply a statistical approach to allow the identification of atypical language patterns and to differentiate patients with epilepsy from healthy subjects, based on their cerebral activity, as assessed by functional MRI (fMRI). Patients with focal epilepsy show reorganization or plasticity of brain networks involved in cognitive functions, inducing 'atypical' (compared to 'typical' in healthy people) brain profiles. Moreover, some of these patients suffer from drug-resistant epilepsy, and they undergo surgery to stop seizures. The neurosurgeon should only remove the zone generating seizures and must preserve cognitive functions to avoid deficits. To preserve functions, one should know how they are represented in the patient's brain, which is in general different from that of healthy subjects. For this purpose, in the pre-surgical stage, robust and efficient methods are required to identify atypical from typical representations. Given the frequent location of regions generating seizures in the vicinity of language networks, one important function to be considered is language. The risk of language impairment after surgery is determined pre-surgically by mapping language networks. In clinical settings, cognitive mapping is classically performed with fMRI. The fMRI analyses allowing the identification of atypical patterns of language networks in patients are not sufficiently robust and require additional statistic approaches. In this study, we report the use of a statistical nonlinear machine learning classification, the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm, to identify atypical patterns and classify 55 participants as healthy subjects or patients with epilepsy. XGBoost analyses were based on neurophysiological features in five language regions (three frontal and two temporal) in both hemispheres and activated with fMRI for a phonological (PHONO) and a semantic (SEM) language task. These features were combined into 135 cognitively plausible subsets and further submitted to selection and binary classification. Classification performance was scored with the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Our results showed that the subset SEM_LH BA_47-21 (left fronto-temporal activation induced by the SEM task) provided the best discrimination between the two groups (AUC of 91 ± 5%). The results are discussed in the framework of the current debates of language reorganization in focal epilepsy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40708-017-0065-7

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Wieser H Engel J Pea Williamson Surgically remediable temporal lobe syndromes. Surgical treatment of the epilepsies 1993 New York Raven Press 49 63
  2. [28]Chen T, He T (2014) Higgs boson discovery with boosted trees. In: HEPML@ NIPS, pp 69–80
  3. [49]Friedman J Hastie T Tibshirani R The elements of statistical learning. Springer series in statistics 2001 Berlin Springer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torlay, L., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Thomas, E., & Baciu, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université Pierre Mendès France (FR)
Corresponding author
Baciu, M.
Venue
Brain Informatics
Published
2017-04-22
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
159-169
ISSN
  • 2198-4018 (ISSN-L)
  • 2198-4026
OpenAlex
W2606665849
Cited by
483
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 3
FWCI
25.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
ANR Grant Infrastructure d’Avenir en Biologie Santé (ANR-11-INBS-0006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
focal epilepsy, language network, XGBoost, functional MRI, language mapping, drug-resistant epilepsy, surgical planning, language reorganization, neuroplasticity, semantic tasks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review