A computational biomarker of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy from resting-state MEG

1. Introduction

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders with an estimated 5 million new diagnosis each year (WHO, 2019). The diagnosis of epilepsy is based on clinical history and supported by clinical electroencephalography (EEG). The presence of interictal spikes in the routine scalp EEG recordings is one of the most valuable biomarkers of epilepsy (Pillai and Sperling, 2006). However, the presence of interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) in a routine EEG is low, ranging between 25 and 56% (Smith, 2005; Benbadis et al., 2020). Furthermore, about 10% of people with epilepsy do not show IEDs even after repeated or prolonged EEG (Smith, 2005;Benbadis et al., 2020). On the other hand, specificity is also suboptimal, ranging between 78 and 98% (Smith, 2005), which, for example, may delay the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic attacks by 7 to 10 years (Benbadis, 2009).

The low sensitivity of IEDs results from IEDs being typically rare events. This may be a consequence of their sources being deep in the brain and/or the extent of cortex involved in epileptic activity being undetectable at the scalp surface (Pillai and Sperling, 2006). Consequently, much of the routine clinical EEG recording consists of brain activity that appears normal to visual inspection, which without other visible disturbances in background rhythms is considered non-informative. However, growing evidence suggests that such sections of interictal EEG without IEDs may be used to inform epilepsy diagnosis (e.g. Larsson and Kostov, 2005; Schmidt et al., 2016; Verhoeven et al., 2008).Larsson and Kostov (2005) showed that there is a shift in the peak of the alpha power towards lower frequencies in interictal EEG from people with both focal and generalized epilepsy. More recently, Abela et al. (2019) found that a slower alpha rhythm may be an indicator of seizure liability. Other studies have used graph theory to test whether functional networks derived from interictal EEG differ from EEG obtained from healthy controls. It has been found that functional networks from people with epilepsy are more “regular” (i.e. higher path lengths between nodes) and deviate more from small-world structures than those found in healthy controls (Horstmann et al., 2010; Quraan et al., 2013).Functional network alterations inferred from resting-state EEG have also been used to differentiate children with focal epilepsy from healthy children (van Diessen et al., 2013,2016). Furthermore, resting-state EEG functional networks from people with IGE were shown to have more functional connections than healthy controls (Chowdhury et al., 2014). Functional networks inferred from interictal EEG from people with temporal lobe epilepsy have also been shown to differ from those from healthy controls (Coito et al., 2016).

All these studies show that functional networks based on apparently normal EEG may aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy. However, these studies lack mechanistic insights as to why such differences may be related to epilepsy. To build such understanding, we and others have proposed to use mathematical models of epilepsy to assess the functional networks and elucidate as to why a brain may be prone to generate seizures (Schmidt et al., 2014, 2016; Petkov et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2019). In particular, we showed that resting-state EEG functional networks from people with IGE are more prone to support synchronization phenomena and the emergence of seizure-like activity than those from controls (Schmidt et al., 2014; Petkov et al., 2014). To quantify the differences, we introduced the concept of brain network ictogenicity (BNI), i.e. a measure of how likely a functional network is of generating seizures in silico (Petkov et al., 2014).

For the BNI to be useful for diagnosing people with epilepsy from apparently normal brain activity, we relied on the assumption that the ability of a brain to generate seizures is an enduring feature that should be identifiable during interictal periods. We further assumed that such underlying closeness to seizures is captured by the properties of functional networks. We then assess the capacity of a given functional network to generate seizures by estimating BNI through computer simulations that produce long-term activity from which the volume of epileptiform activity can be evaluated. People with epilepsy were therefore assumed to have resting-state functional networks that were more ictogenic, i.e. that had a higher propensity to generate seizures as estimated by the BNI, compared to healthy people. Using this framework on a dataset comprising 30 people with IGE and 38 healthy controls it was found 100% specificity at 56.7% sensitivity, and 100% sensitivity at 65.8% specificity (Schmidt et al., 2016).

In the current study, we aim to test whether the BNI concept may be equally useful when applied to resting-state MEG data (i.e. its generalizability to a different data modality), and whether it may yield superior diagnostic power of epilepsy relative to previous applications of BNI to resting-state EEG data. In particular, we aim to find whether BNI may be capable of differentiating juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) from healthy controls, using MEG data, and observe how classification accuracy compares to previous studies of BNI on scalp EEG (Schmidt et al., 2014, 2016). Since MEG has the advantage, relative to EEG, of neuromagnetic fields being minimally perturbed by brain tissue, skull and scalp (Supek and Aine, 2016), one may expect that MEG-derived functional networks may be more reliable than those from EEG, which in turn may enhance the BNI’s ability to differentiate people with generalized epilepsy from healthy controls.

2. Methods

2.6 Brain network ictogenicity

The mathematical model allowed us to generate synthetic brain activity which fluctuated between the resting and the seizure states. To quantify this activity, we used the BNI (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Petkov et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020), which is the average fraction of time that the network spent in the seizure state (see Supplementary Material S3 for more details). We interpret higher values of BNI as representing a higher inherent propensity of the brain to generate seizure activity. Thus, although we use resting-state MEG data to infer the functional networks, we assume that the underlying brain states may differ in their inherent propensity to generate seizures and this may be captured by our computational framework. We expect that functional networks from JME individuals should be characterized by higher values of BNI than those from healthy individuals.

The simulated synthetic activity depends on a model parameter, the global scaling coupling (see Supplementary Material S2). Higher K values imply stronger neuronal interactions between connected nodes, which in turn leads to higher BNI values. Hence, for a fair comparison of BNI between different functional networks, K must be the same in all simulations. To avoid an arbitrary choice of K, we considered a redefinition of BNI (Lopes et al., 2018). This redefinition consists in computing BNI for a sufficiently large interval of K values in order to capture the full variation of BNI from 0 to 1. Then we calculated as the integral of the BNI in this interval (see Supplementary Material S3). For a meaningful comparison between different functional networks, we used the same interval of K for all simulations. This procedure has been shown to be robust (Lopes et al., 2018).Analogously to the BNI, a higher value corresponds to a higher propensity of a network to generate seizures. Figure 1 summarizes the key steps of our method.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Scheme of the data analysis procedure to compute . (a) We select a MEG source reconstructed data segment and by measuring the AEC we obtain (b) a functional network. To assess the propensity of the network to generate seizures, we then use (c) the theta model to simulate (d) synthetic brain activity. We then calculate (e) the BNI, i.e. the average fraction of time that network nodes spend in seizure-like activity. To avoid an arbitrary choice of K, we compute (f) BNI as a function of (g) is then the integral of BNI in the interval [K₁, K₂] i.e. the area under the BNI curve.

3. Results

We considered resting-state MEG recordings from 26 people with JME and 26 healthy controls. To test whether was larger in individuals with JME than in healthy controls, we first built functional networks from MEG source reconstructed data, then we placed a mathematical model of ictogenicity into the network nodes and measured the networks’ propensity to generate seizures in silico. Figure 2(a) shows the for all individuals. Overall, individuals with JME had larger values than healthy controls (p = 0.0039, Mann-Whitney U test). This finding confirms our hypothesis that resting-state functional networks from people with epilepsy have a higher propensity to generate seizures than those from healthy controls. Note also that for each individual, we observed that had a small variance (i.e. the intraindividual BNI variability is smaller than the interindividual BNI variability), implying that was consistent across the 10 different MEG resting-state functional networks of each individual. We then tested whether could be used for individual classification as to whether individuals had epilepsy. Figure 2(b) shows the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.72, the sensitivity was 0.77, and the specificity was 0.58. The ’s classification accuracy was 73%.

The results in Fig. 2 may be confounded by a number of factors. Namely, epilepsy duration and seizure frequency may have an impact on the values. Figure S1 shows the versus these clinical characteristics in the JME group. From visual inspection, the figure suggests that while individuals with short epilepsy duration or low seizure frequency may exhibit both low and high values, individuals with relatively longer epilepsy duration (larger than 20 years) and higher seizure frequency (higher than 200 seizures per year) present high values.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

Brain network ictogenicity () in healthy individuals and people with JME. Each marker in panel (a) represents the average (i.e. 〈〉) of a single individual and the error bars their standard error computed from 10 MEG resting-state functional networks. Blue markers correspond to healthy individuals, whereas red markers correspond to individuals with epilepsy. The epilepsy group has a larger 〈〉 than the healthy group (p = 0.0039, Mann-Whitney U test). Panel (b) shows the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for one group versus the other using the 〈〉 as a classifier. The area under the curve (AUC) is 0.72 and the circle identifies the optimal operating point of the ROC curve, for which the sensitivity is 0.77, and the specificity is 0.58.

4. Discussion

To date, the BNI framework has proved to be valuable for the diagnosis of IGE using scalp EEG (Schmidt et al., 2014, 2016; Petkov et al., 2014), assessment of epilepsy surgery using intracranial EEG (Goodfellow et al., 2016; Lopes et al., 2017, 2018, 2020; Laiou et al., 2019), and epilepsy classification using scalp EEG (Lopes et al., 2019). Here we aimed to test whether the concept of BNI could differentiate people with JME from age and gender matched healthy controls using resting-state MEG data. We found that the BNI is on average higher in the JME group than in the control group.We further found that, as a classifier, the BNI yields a sensitivity of 0.77, a specificity of 0.58, and an AUC of 0.72, which is similar to previous findings in IGE using scalp EEG (Schmidt et al., 2016). This result suggests that MEG and scalp EEG may yield similar diagnostic power despite MEG being considered superior to EEG in recording reliable brain signals (Supek and Aine, 2016). In other words, this suggests that the key functional network properties that characterize the underlying brain ictogenicity may be similarly captured by MEG and scalp EEG.

Resting-state MEG functional networks have been previously shown to be altered in people with epilepsy relative to healthy controls (van Dellen et al., 2012; Niso et al., 2015; Hsiao et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2017; Routley et al., 2020). For example, Niso et al. (2015) used 15 graph-theoretic measures to quantify resting-state MEG functional networks from people with frontal focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and healthy individuals. They found that functional networks from generalized epilepsy had greater efficiency and lower eccentricity than those from controls, whereas functional networks from frontal focal epilepsy exhibited only reduced eccentricity over fronto-temporal and central sensors relative to networks from controls. Furthermore, machine learning has been used to also differentiate people with epilepsy from controls (Soriano et al., 2017). Our study distinguishes from these studies by not only searching for differences between functional networks in health and disease, but instead test a specific mechanistic hypothesis that justifies the difference. Thus, our approach is more readily interpretable and may offer insight into why altered functional networks underlie epilepsy.

We acknowledge that our study has some limitations. First, in order to truly test how MEG-based predictions compare to scalp EEG-based predictions, we would need both MEG and EEG data collected from the same participants. Future work should assess whether predictions based on both data modalities would deliver equivalent individual classification. Second, people with JME were taking anti-epileptic medication, which may have potentially reduced the BNI in some JME individuals, making them indistinguishable from healthy individuals. Future studies should consider newly diagnosed drug-naïve individuals. This may be particularly important to also control for the effect of epilepsy duration and seizure frequency on BNI. Our results suggest that individuals with longer epilepsy duration and higher seizure frequency were more likely to be characterized by high BNI. On one hand this is an expected observation, i.e. BNI should be higher for individuals more prone to seizures and also those for which a longer disease may have had an impact on resting-state functional connectivity. On the other hand, these were individuals for which diagnosis could be less challenging. Third, we focused our analysis on differentiation of people with JME from healthy controls. We therefore cannot exclude the possibility that our findings are specific to JME. More comprehensive datasets will be needed to explore whether our findings generalize to other types of epilepsy.

5. Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that the BNI framework generalizes from scalp EEG to MEG. We showed that resting-state MEG from people with JME is characterized by higher BNI than that from healthy controls. The achieved classification accuracy is similar to previously obtained from scalp EEG, suggesting that the two data modalities may capture similar underlying ictogenic features.

Conflict of Interest Statement

27 JT is co-founder and Director of Neuronostics.