Cited by 66Epilepsy research and treatmentEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeurological disorders and treatments

An assessment of MEG coherence imaging in the study of temporal lobe epilepsy: Coherence MEG Outcomes

Open access
Elisevich, Kost, Shukla, Neetu, Moran, John E., Smith, Brien, Schultz, Lonni, Mason, Karen, Barkley, Gregory L., Tepley, Norman +2 more·2011·Epilepsia

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study examines whether magnetoencephalographic (MEG) coherence imaging is more sensitive than the standard single equivalent dipole (ECD) model in lateralizing the site of epileptogenicity in patients with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). METHODS: An archival review of ECD MEG analyses of 30 presurgical patients with TLE was undertaken with data extracted subsequently for coherence analysis by a blinded reviewer for comparison of accuracy of lateralization. Postoperative outcome was assessed by Engel classification. MEG coherence images were generated from 10 min of spontaneous brain activity and compared to surgically resected brain areas outlined on each subject's magnetic resonance image (MRI). Coherence values were averaged independently for each hemisphere to ascertain the laterality of the epileptic network. Reliability between runs was established by calculating the correlation between epochs. Match rates compared the results of each of the two MEG analyses with optimal postoperative outcome. KEY FINDINGS: The ECD method provided an overall match rate of 50% (13/16 cases) for Engel class I outcomes, with 37% (11/30 cases) found to be indeterminate (i.e., no spikes identified on MEG). Coherence analysis provided an overall match rate of 77% (20/26 cases). Of 19 cases without evidence of mesial temporal sclerosis, coherence analysis correctly lateralized the side of TLE in 11 cases (58%). Sensitivity of the ECD method was 41% (indeterminate cases included) and that of the coherence method 73%, with a positive predictive value of 70% for an Engel class Ia outcome. Intrasubject coherence imaging reliability was consistent from run-to-run (correlation > 0.90) using three 10-min epochs. SIGNIFICANCE: MEG coherence analysis has greater sensitivity than the ECD method for lateralizing TLE and demonstrates reliable stability from run-to-run. It, therefore, improves upon the capability of MEG in providing further information of use in clinical decision-making where the laterality of TLE is questioned.

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 · 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.02990.x

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Approaches integrating electrophysiological source imaging with functional connectivity have been applied to determine epileptic networks with positive results.

    “Such approaches have been applied to determine epileptic networks with positive results indicating the merits of integrating ESI with functional connectivity in mapping brain networks (108, 109).”

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: 1

  1. Kraskov A 2004 Applications of synchronization and interdependence measures in particular to EEG of epilepsy patients John Von Neumann Institute for Computing, NIC PhD thesis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elisevich, K., Shukla, N., Moran, J. E., Smith, B., Schultz, L., Mason, K., Barkley, G. L., Tepley, N., Gumenyuk, V., & Bowyer, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Henry Ford Health (US)
  • Oakland University (US)
Corresponding author
Bowyer, Susan M.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03-02
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
1110-1119
ISSN
0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1557378166
Cited by
66
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epilepsia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS30914, R01NS030914)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
temporal lobe epilepsy, drug-resistant epilepsy, preoperative assessment, Engel classification, hippocampal sclerosis, spontaneous brain activity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Magnetoencephalography, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult

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