Fig. 3: The statistical comparison between IOM and EMU. | Communications Medicine

Fig. 3: The statistical comparison between IOM and EMU.

From: Using high-frequency oscillations from brief intraoperative neural recordings to predict the seizure onset zone

Fig. 3

a The confusion matrix of classification of real and pseudo-HFO events in IOM (90.31%) and EMU (88.07%). No statistically significant differences were found between the accuracy of IOM and EMU classification (p = 0.15). b The number of initially detected R and FR events. c The total number of detected real and pseudo-HFOs in IOM and EMU. d The number of eliminated R and FR events after applying the proposed method. e The number of R and FR events that passed the proposed method. f Normalized HFO rate from all, SOZ, and out of SOZ channels in IOM and EMU (event per minute per contact) after pseudo-HFO elimination. The thick lines in the plot represent the mean values, while the thin error bars indicate the mean ± standard deviation (std). Values in this section are presented as mean ± std. g The correlation between the spatial distribution of events detected before and after pseudo-HFO elimination in a representative subject (P3). LA left amygdala, LAH left anterior hippocampus, LPH left posterior hippocampus, LOF left orbital frontal, LAC left anterior cingulate, LPC left posterior cingulate, ASP left anterior-superior precuneus, LC left anterior cuneus. h The median angle (red line) and the cosine similarity between the spatial distribution of HFO, R, and FR over electrodes of all subjects between IOM and EMU scenarios before (initial) and after (remaining) pseudo-HFO elimination. (N.S. indicates that the p-value is above 0.05.) IOM intraoperative monitoring, EMU epilepsy monitoring unit, HFO high- frequency oscillation, R ripple, FR fast ripple, rHFO real-HFO, pHFO pseudo-HFO, SOZ seizure onset zone, oSOZ out of seizure onset zone.

Back to article page