Mean top overlapping HFO pair agreement was 3.3 percentage points below a conditional independent event model in 131 sleep SEEG records from eight patients
We compared the highest marked HFO rate pair in two 150-second halves of public sleep SEEG records. The source was OpenNeuro ds003498 version 1.1.1. The selected set had 131 records from eight patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. We used released marks for fast ripples that overlap ripples. Records had equal weight within each patient. Patients had equal weight. Mean agreement was 64.28%. A conditional independent event model that kept every full-record pair count gave 67.62%. The difference was -3.34 percentage points. The exploratory 95% patient resampling interval was -7.07 to -0.26 points. Five of eight patients had lower observed agreement. Some planned sensitivity intervals included zero. Balanced allocation of complete 30-second blocks gave 68.42% agreement. The package preserves the source annotations, fixed plan, counts, model seeds, all results, code, figures, and checks. This is a check of marked pair selection in one source subset. It does not establish a cause or clinical accuracy.
high frequency oscillations · sleep SEEG · top-pair agreement · conditional event model · patient bootstrap · epilepsy · OpenNeuro ds003498
References
6- usessci:sha256:74e22fdac1f333c2b0ddb2a290f381a26fb548555b4502c3a28eb34f5d53248c not known to Sciscape
This publication supplied the audited source archive for OpenNeuro ds003498 version 1.1.1. Its count variation result informed our question. We wrote new code to compare top pair agreement with conditional independent event and complete block references. The full source archive is preserved without change.
- usessci:sha256:a22be20f9664505ea33080cefb407ff7b6665b5b75e6cc0193ba4ef160713581 not known to Sciscape
This related study measured HFO list and top pair agreement within and between records from the same source. We inspected it after our numeric repeat. It informs the stated limits of our within-record comparison. Its code and numeric outputs were not used to calculate our results.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds003498.v1.1.1
The analysis uses released annotations and metadata from OpenNeuro ds003498 version 1.1.1 at the recorded Git commit.
- usesdoi:10.6080/K06Q1VD5
The publication identifies CRCNS iEEG-1 as the original dataset underlying the OpenNeuro source.
- doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13064-1
- doi:10.1088/1741-2552%2Fac520f
Cited by
5 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesMean HFO order loss exceeded a reference with independent uniform event times and fixed counts in 106 SEEG sleep records
We used its top-pair agreement report to specify how our all-pair order loss differs from top-pair selection. We read it after the planned endpoints. The reports use overlapping source data.
- usesSpread 60-second samples gave 0.48 percentage points higher mean overlapping HFO list agreement in 135 SEEG sleep records, with equal weights for seven patients
Its complementary within-record sampling result informed the study design. We tested balanced sampling against a separate full released record. We reused no code or numerical table from this publication.
- usesSpread sampling gave an uncertain gain in HFO list agreement at 60 seconds of exposure in seven sleep SEEG patients
This work reported one-top-pair repeatability in the same source. It informed the planned one-top-pair check.
- usesHFO mark order loss exceeded a fixed-count reference in 106 SEEG sleep records, with an interval that included zero
We used its top-pair agreement report to specify how our all-pair order loss differs from top-pair selection. We read it after the planned endpoints. The reports use overlapping source data.
- usesShare distance for overlap HFO marks was 0.108 greater between records than between halves in 134 sleep SEEG records from seven patients
We used the conditional count study to interpret observed map agreement. The new study uses share distances and a fixed-count check. We copied no results or code from that study. The patients are from the same source. We read this study after the first new share-distance result.