用分形维度描述抗癫痫药物对脑电图神经动力的影响

C. Porcaro, Dario Seppi, Giovanni Pellegrino, Filippo Dainese, B. Kassabian, Luciano Pellegrino, Gianluigi De Nardi, Alberto Grego, Maurizio Corbetta, Florinda Ferreri
{"title":"用分形维度描述抗癫痫药物对脑电图神经动力的影响","authors":"C. Porcaro, Dario Seppi, Giovanni Pellegrino, Filippo Dainese, B. Kassabian, Luciano Pellegrino, Gianluigi De Nardi, Alberto Grego, Maurizio Corbetta, Florinda Ferreri","doi":"10.3389/fnins.2024.1401068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An important challenge in epilepsy is to define biomarkers of response to treatment. Many electroencephalography (EEG) methods and indices have been developed mainly using linear methods, e.g., spectral power and individual alpha frequency peak (IAF). However, brain activity is complex and non-linear, hence there is a need to explore EEG neurodynamics using nonlinear approaches. Here, we use the Fractal Dimension (FD), a measure of whole brain signal complexity, to measure the response to anti-seizure therapy in patients with Focal Epilepsy (FE) and compare it with linear methods.Twenty-five drug-responder (DR) patients with focal epilepsy were studied before (t1, named DR-t1) and after (t2, named DR-t2) the introduction of the anti-seizure medications (ASMs). DR-t1 and DR-t2 EEG results were compared against 40 age-matched healthy controls (HC).EEG data were investigated from two different angles: frequency domain—spectral properties in δ, θ, α, β, and γ bands and the IAF peak, and time-domain—FD as a signature of the nonlinear complexity of the EEG signals. Those features were compared among the three groups.The δ power differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The θ power differed between DR-t1 and DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and between DR-t1 and HC (p = 0.01). The α power, similar to the δ, differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The IAF value was lower for DR-t1 than DR-t2 (p = 0.048) and HC (p = 0.042). The FD value was lower in DR-t1 than in DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and HC (p = 0.011). Finally, Bayes Factor analysis showed that FD was 195 times more likely to separate DR-t1 from DR-t2 than IAF and 231 times than θ.FD measured in baseline EEG signals is a non-linear brain measure of complexity more sensitive than EEG power or IAF in detecting a response to ASMs. This likely reflects the non-oscillatory nature of neural activity, which FD better describes.Our work suggests that FD is a promising measure to monitor the response to ASMs in FE.","PeriodicalId":509131,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neuroscience","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characterization of antiseizure medications effects on the EEG neurodynamic by fractal dimension\",\"authors\":\"C. Porcaro, Dario Seppi, Giovanni Pellegrino, Filippo Dainese, B. Kassabian, Luciano Pellegrino, Gianluigi De Nardi, Alberto Grego, Maurizio Corbetta, Florinda Ferreri\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnins.2024.1401068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An important challenge in epilepsy is to define biomarkers of response to treatment. Many electroencephalography (EEG) methods and indices have been developed mainly using linear methods, e.g., spectral power and individual alpha frequency peak (IAF). However, brain activity is complex and non-linear, hence there is a need to explore EEG neurodynamics using nonlinear approaches. Here, we use the Fractal Dimension (FD), a measure of whole brain signal complexity, to measure the response to anti-seizure therapy in patients with Focal Epilepsy (FE) and compare it with linear methods.Twenty-five drug-responder (DR) patients with focal epilepsy were studied before (t1, named DR-t1) and after (t2, named DR-t2) the introduction of the anti-seizure medications (ASMs). DR-t1 and DR-t2 EEG results were compared against 40 age-matched healthy controls (HC).EEG data were investigated from two different angles: frequency domain—spectral properties in δ, θ, α, β, and γ bands and the IAF peak, and time-domain—FD as a signature of the nonlinear complexity of the EEG signals. Those features were compared among the three groups.The δ power differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The θ power differed between DR-t1 and DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and between DR-t1 and HC (p = 0.01). The α power, similar to the δ, differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The IAF value was lower for DR-t1 than DR-t2 (p = 0.048) and HC (p = 0.042). The FD value was lower in DR-t1 than in DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and HC (p = 0.011). Finally, Bayes Factor analysis showed that FD was 195 times more likely to separate DR-t1 from DR-t2 than IAF and 231 times than θ.FD measured in baseline EEG signals is a non-linear brain measure of complexity more sensitive than EEG power or IAF in detecting a response to ASMs. This likely reflects the non-oscillatory nature of neural activity, which FD better describes.Our work suggests that FD is a promising measure to monitor the response to ASMs in FE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1401068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1401068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

癫痫的一个重要挑战是确定治疗反应的生物标志物。目前已开发出许多脑电图(EEG)方法和指数,主要采用线性方法,如频谱功率和单个阿尔法频率峰(IAF)。然而,大脑活动是复杂和非线性的,因此有必要使用非线性方法来探索脑电图神经动力学。在此,我们使用分形维度(FD)来测量局灶性癫痫(FE)患者对抗癫痫治疗的反应,并将其与线性方法进行比较。我们对 25 名局灶性癫痫的药物反应(DR)患者在使用抗癫痫药物(ASMs)之前(t1,称为 DR-t1)和之后(t2,称为 DR-t2)进行了研究。DR-t1 和 DR-t2 的脑电图结果与 40 名年龄匹配的健康对照组(HC)进行了比较。脑电图数据从两个不同的角度进行了研究:频域-δ、θ、α、β、γ 波段的频谱特性和 IAF 峰值,以及作为脑电信号非线性复杂性特征的时域-FD。对三组患者的这些特征进行了比较。DR 患者在 ASM 前后的 δ 功率与 HC 之间存在差异(DR-t1 vs. HC,p < 0.01;DR-t2 vs. HC,p < 0.01)。DR-t1 和 DR-t2 的 θ 功率不同(p = 0.015),DR-t1 和 HC 的 θ 功率不同(p = 0.01)。α功率与δ相似,在ASM前后的DR患者与HC之间存在差异(DR-t1 vs. HC,p < 0.01;DR-t2 vs. HC,p < 0.01)。DR-t1 的 IAF 值低于 DR-t2(p = 0.048)和 HC(p = 0.042)。DR-t1 的 FD 值低于 DR-t2 (p = 0.015) 和 HC (p = 0.011)。最后,贝叶斯因子分析显示,FD 将 DR-t1 与 DR-t2 区分开来的可能性是 IAF 的 195 倍,是 θ 的 231 倍。在检测对 ASM 的反应时,基线脑电信号中测量的 FD 是一种非线性大脑复杂性测量方法,比 EEG 功率或 IAF 更敏感。这可能反映了神经活动的非振荡性质,而 FD 更好地描述了这一性质。我们的工作表明,FD 是监测 FE 对 ASM 反应的一种有前途的测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Characterization of antiseizure medications effects on the EEG neurodynamic by fractal dimension
An important challenge in epilepsy is to define biomarkers of response to treatment. Many electroencephalography (EEG) methods and indices have been developed mainly using linear methods, e.g., spectral power and individual alpha frequency peak (IAF). However, brain activity is complex and non-linear, hence there is a need to explore EEG neurodynamics using nonlinear approaches. Here, we use the Fractal Dimension (FD), a measure of whole brain signal complexity, to measure the response to anti-seizure therapy in patients with Focal Epilepsy (FE) and compare it with linear methods.Twenty-five drug-responder (DR) patients with focal epilepsy were studied before (t1, named DR-t1) and after (t2, named DR-t2) the introduction of the anti-seizure medications (ASMs). DR-t1 and DR-t2 EEG results were compared against 40 age-matched healthy controls (HC).EEG data were investigated from two different angles: frequency domain—spectral properties in δ, θ, α, β, and γ bands and the IAF peak, and time-domain—FD as a signature of the nonlinear complexity of the EEG signals. Those features were compared among the three groups.The δ power differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The θ power differed between DR-t1 and DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and between DR-t1 and HC (p = 0.01). The α power, similar to the δ, differed between DR patients pre and post-ASM and HC (DR-t1 vs. HC, p < 0.01 and DR-t2 vs. HC, p < 0.01). The IAF value was lower for DR-t1 than DR-t2 (p = 0.048) and HC (p = 0.042). The FD value was lower in DR-t1 than in DR-t2 (p = 0.015) and HC (p = 0.011). Finally, Bayes Factor analysis showed that FD was 195 times more likely to separate DR-t1 from DR-t2 than IAF and 231 times than θ.FD measured in baseline EEG signals is a non-linear brain measure of complexity more sensitive than EEG power or IAF in detecting a response to ASMs. This likely reflects the non-oscillatory nature of neural activity, which FD better describes.Our work suggests that FD is a promising measure to monitor the response to ASMs in FE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信