↓ Skip to main content

Rapid and efficient localization of depth electrodes and cortical labeling using free and open source medical software in epilepsy surgery candidates

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rapid and efficient localization of depth electrodes and cortical labeling using free and open source medical software in epilepsy surgery candidates
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Pablo Princich, Demian Wassermann, Facundo Latini, Silvia Oddo, Alejandro Omar Blenkmann, Gustavo Seifer, Silvia Kochen

Abstract

Depth intracranial electrodes (IEs) placement is one of the most used procedures to identify the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in surgical treatment of drug resistant epilepsy patients, about 20-30% of this population. IEs localization is therefore a critical issue defining the EZ and its relation with eloquent functional areas. That information is then used to target the resective surgery and has great potential to affect outcome. We designed a methodological procedure intended to avoid the need for highly specialized medical resources and reduce time to identify the anatomical location of IEs, during the first instances of intracranial EEG recordings. This workflow is based on established open source software; 3D Slicer and Freesurfer that uses MRI and Post-implant CT fusion for the localization of IEs and its relation with automatic labeled surrounding cortex. To test this hypothesis we assessed the time elapsed between the surgical implantation process and the final anatomical localization of IEs by means of our proposed method compared against traditional visual analysis of raw post-implant imaging in two groups of patients. All IEs were identified in the first 24 H (6-24 H) of implantation using our method in 4 patients of the first group. For the control group; all IEs were identified by experts with an overall time range of 36 h to 3 days using traditional visual analysis. It included (7 patients), 3 patients implanted with IEs and the same 4 patients from the first group. Time to localization was restrained in this group by the specialized personnel and the image quality available. To validate our method; we trained two inexperienced operators to assess the position of IEs contacts on four patients (5 IEs) using the proposed method. We quantified the discrepancies between operators and we also assessed the efficiency of our method to define the EZ comparing the findings against the results of traditional analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 101 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Neuroscience 14 13%
Engineering 12 11%
Psychology 9 8%
Computer Science 7 6%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 20 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,067
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,615
of 289,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#158
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.