Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study evaluates how different graph topologies impact the localization of epileptogenic zones using stereo-EEG data, demonstrating that specific structural priors like Region-Bridge-$c$ outperform dense graphs while significantly reducing computational edges. The findings highlight that graph construction is not a fixed preprocessing step but a variable factor requiring explicit evaluation to optimize model performance across individual patients.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Graph-Based Approaches to Learning Epileptogenic Zone Localization Using Stereo-EEG Recordings

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2608.18887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The epileptogenic zone (EZ) is the brain region that generates seizures in an individual, and is the target of epilepsy surgery. Localizing the EZ from stereo-EEG (sEEG) recordings supports surgical planning, but manual interpretation is time-consuming and focuses on seizure recordings. Graphical learning models of resting-state functional connectivity among the recorded brain regions are an attractive alternative, but depend crucially on the network topology chosen for the model. We present a controlled study of graph-based models to explore how graph topology affects EZ localization from resting-state sEEG in 40 patients. Using the same simple learnable model and leave-one-patient-out evaluation, we compare dense graphs, anatomy- and geometry-informed priors, budgeted sparsification methods, and learned sparsification, including the proposed Region-Bridge-$c$ topology. To compare graph constructions fairly, we control the number of incoming edges per node and vary graph sparsity. At $\approx 30\%$ edge retention, Region-Bridge-$c$ achieves the highest observed mean PR-AUC ($0.371\pm0.015$; ROC-AUC $0.743\pm0.010$) while using $\approx 69\%$ fewer edges than Dense (PR-AUC $0.349\pm0.014$). Spatial-$k$ is competitive, whereas random pruning requires near-dense retention. Learned sparsification benefits from anatomical node metadata but, on average, does not surpass the best fixed prior. Across all topologies, the best choice varies by patient. These results suggest that graph construction should be evaluated explicitly rather than treated as fixed preprocessing.

Abstract:The epileptogenic zone (EZ) is the brain region that generates seizures in an individual, and is the target of epilepsy surgery. Localizing the EZ from stereo-EEG (sEEG) recordings supports surgical planning, but manual interpretation is time-consuming and focuses on seizure recordings. Graphical learning models of resting-state functional connectivity among the recorded brain regions are an attractive alternative, but depend crucially on the network topology chosen for the model. We present a controlled study of graph-based models to explore how graph topology affects EZ localization from resting-state sEEG in 40 patients. Using the same simple learnable model and leave-one-patient-out evaluation, we compare dense graphs, anatomy- and geometry-informed priors, budgeted sparsification methods, and learned sparsification, including the proposed Region-Bridge-$c$ topology. To compare graph constructions fairly, we control the number of incoming edges per node and vary graph sparsity. At $\approx 30\%$ edge retention, Region-Bridge-$c$ achieves the highest observed mean PR-AUC ($0.371\pm0.015$; ROC-AUC $0.743\pm0.010$) while using $\approx 69\%$ fewer edges than Dense (PR-AUC $0.349\pm0.014$). Spatial-$k$ is competitive, whereas random pruning requires near-dense retention. Learned sparsification benefits from anatomical node metadata but, on average, does not surpass the best fixed prior. Across all topologies, the best choice varies by patient. These results suggest that graph construction should be evaluated explicitly rather than treated as fixed preprocessing.

8 pages, 2 figures. Accepted for the Proceedings of IEEE WCCI 2026 (IJCNN), Maastricht, Netherlands

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.18887 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.18887v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18887 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 321 words

Related coverage