光泵磁强计与超导量子干涉装置在脑磁图中检测和定位癫痫样放电的比较研究

IF 4.7 2区医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING

NeuroImage Pub Date : 2025-04-18 DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121232

Jiechuan Ren , Ming Ding , Yuming Peng , Chang Sun , Chunqing Yang , Shuxian Zhou , Jiayin Tian , Qun Wang , Zhimei Li

{"title":"光泵磁强计与超导量子干涉装置在脑磁图中检测和定位癫痫样放电的比较研究","authors":"Jiechuan Ren , Ming Ding , Yuming Peng , Chang Sun , Chunqing Yang , Shuxian Zhou , Jiayin Tian , Qun Wang , Zhimei Li","doi":"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based magnetoencephalography (MEG) holds substantial clinical value in epilepsy examination but is limited by the high costs. The optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-based MEG appears promising in overcoming these limitations. This study aims to explore the consistency of interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) detection and source localization between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with epilepsy underwent SQUID-MEG and 128-channel whole-scalp OPM-MEG examinations. IED detection, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), sensor-scalp distance, and source localization results were compared between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG through statistical analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The cohort comprised 46 patients with epilepsy (mean age, 23.7 ± 8.7 [SD] years; 29 male). McNemar <em>χ</em><sup>2</sup> test indicated no significant difference for IED detection between two systems. OPM-MEG achieved a detection accuracy of 91.3 % compared with SQUID-MEG; a Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC<sub>1</sub>) of 0.892 suggested good consistency. Among 39 patients with IEDs detected by both systems, OPM-MEG demonstrated closer sensor-scalp distance (<em>p</em> < 0.001), higher IED amplitude (<em>p</em> < 0.001) and SNR (<em>p</em> = 0.003) compared with SQUID-MEG. At the sublobar level, OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG exhibited nearly consistent source localization results. Among 24 patients with single dipole clusters, the average centroid distance between dipole clusters of OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG was 12.16 ± 5.90 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This real-world study demonstrated that OPM-MEG had comparable applicability in IED detection and source localization, compared with SQUID-MEG. Additionally, OPM-MEG performed better in terms of IED amplitude and SNR. Lower costs and user-friendly features highlight the clinical potential of OPM-MEG in epilepsy assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19299,"journal":{"name":"NeuroImage","volume":"312 ","pages":"Article 121232"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study on the detection and localization of interictal epileptiform discharges in magnetoencephalography using optically pumped magnetometers versus superconducting quantum interference devices\",\"authors\":\"Jiechuan Ren , Ming Ding , Yuming Peng , Chang Sun , Chunqing Yang , Shuxian Zhou , Jiayin Tian , Qun Wang , Zhimei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based magnetoencephalography (MEG) holds substantial clinical value in epilepsy examination but is limited by the high costs. The optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-based MEG appears promising in overcoming these limitations. This study aims to explore the consistency of interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) detection and source localization between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with epilepsy underwent SQUID-MEG and 128-channel whole-scalp OPM-MEG examinations. IED detection, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), sensor-scalp distance, and source localization results were compared between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG through statistical analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The cohort comprised 46 patients with epilepsy (mean age, 23.7 ± 8.7 [SD] years; 29 male). McNemar <em>χ</em><sup>2</sup> test indicated no significant difference for IED detection between two systems. OPM-MEG achieved a detection accuracy of 91.3 % compared with SQUID-MEG; a Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC<sub>1</sub>) of 0.892 suggested good consistency. Among 39 patients with IEDs detected by both systems, OPM-MEG demonstrated closer sensor-scalp distance (<em>p</em> < 0.001), higher IED amplitude (<em>p</em> < 0.001) and SNR (<em>p</em> = 0.003) compared with SQUID-MEG. At the sublobar level, OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG exhibited nearly consistent source localization results. Among 24 patients with single dipole clusters, the average centroid distance between dipole clusters of OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG was 12.16 ± 5.90 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This real-world study demonstrated that OPM-MEG had comparable applicability in IED detection and source localization, compared with SQUID-MEG. Additionally, OPM-MEG performed better in terms of IED amplitude and SNR. Lower costs and user-friendly features highlight the clinical potential of OPM-MEG in epilepsy assessments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NeuroImage\",\"volume\":\"312 \",\"pages\":\"Article 121232\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NeuroImage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811925002356\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROIMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroImage","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811925002356","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

基于超导量子干涉装置（SQUID）的脑磁图（MEG）在癫痫检查中具有重要的临床价值，但其成本较高。基于光泵磁强计（OPM）的MEG有望克服这些限制。本研究旨在探讨OPM-MEG和SQUID-MEG在大队列癫痫患者间期癫痫样放电（IED）检测和源定位的一致性。方法对癫痫患者进行SQUID-MEG和128通道全头皮OPM-MEG检查。通过统计分析比较OPM-MEG和SQUID-MEG的IED检测、幅度、信噪比、传感器-头皮距离和源定位结果。结果本组46例癫痫患者(平均年龄23.7±8.7 [SD]岁；29岁男性)。McNemar χ2检验表明，两种系统对IED的检出率无显著差异。与SQUID-MEG相比，OPM-MEG的检测准确率为91.3%；Gwet的一级一致系数（AC1）为0.892，表明一致性较好。在两种系统检测到的39例ied患者中，OPM-MEG显示传感器与头皮的距离更近(p <；0.001)，较高的IED振幅(p <；0.001)和信噪比（p = 0.003）。在叶下水平，OPM-MEG和SQUID-MEG的源定位结果几乎一致。在24例单偶极子簇患者中，OPM-MEG与SQUID-MEG偶极子簇之间的平均质心距离为12.16±5.90 mm。结论与SQUID-MEG相比，OPM-MEG在IED检测和源定位方面具有相当的适用性。此外，OPM-MEG在IED振幅和信噪比方面表现更好。较低的成本和用户友好的特点突出了OPM-MEG在癫痫评估中的临床潜力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A comparative study on the detection and localization of interictal epileptiform discharges in magnetoencephalography using optically pumped magnetometers versus superconducting quantum interference devices

Background

Superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based magnetoencephalography (MEG) holds substantial clinical value in epilepsy examination but is limited by the high costs. The optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-based MEG appears promising in overcoming these limitations. This study aims to explore the consistency of interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) detection and source localization between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy.

Methods

Patients with epilepsy underwent SQUID-MEG and 128-channel whole-scalp OPM-MEG examinations. IED detection, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), sensor-scalp distance, and source localization results were compared between OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG through statistical analysis.

Results

The cohort comprised 46 patients with epilepsy (mean age, 23.7 ± 8.7 [SD] years; 29 male). McNemar χ² test indicated no significant difference for IED detection between two systems. OPM-MEG achieved a detection accuracy of 91.3 % compared with SQUID-MEG; a Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC₁) of 0.892 suggested good consistency. Among 39 patients with IEDs detected by both systems, OPM-MEG demonstrated closer sensor-scalp distance (p < 0.001), higher IED amplitude (p < 0.001) and SNR (p = 0.003) compared with SQUID-MEG. At the sublobar level, OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG exhibited nearly consistent source localization results. Among 24 patients with single dipole clusters, the average centroid distance between dipole clusters of OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG was 12.16 ± 5.90 mm.

Conclusion

This real-world study demonstrated that OPM-MEG had comparable applicability in IED detection and source localization, compared with SQUID-MEG. Additionally, OPM-MEG performed better in terms of IED amplitude and SNR. Lower costs and user-friendly features highlight the clinical potential of OPM-MEG in epilepsy assessments.

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

NeuroImage 医学-核医学

CiteScore

11.30

自引率

10.50%

发文量

809

审稿时长

63 days

期刊介绍： NeuroImage, a Journal of Brain Function provides a vehicle for communicating important advances in acquiring, analyzing, and modelling neuroimaging data and in applying these techniques to the study of structure-function and brain-behavior relationships. Though the emphasis is on the macroscopic level of human brain organization, meso-and microscopic neuroimaging across all species will be considered if informative for understanding the aforementioned relationships.