Researcher profile

Thomas W Owen

Thomas W Owen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Normative brain mapping of interictal intracranial EEG to localise epileptogenic tissue

The identification of abnormal electrographic activity is important in a wide range of neurological disorders, including epilepsy for localising epileptogenic tissue. However, this identification may be challenging during non-seizure (interictal) periods, especially if abnormalities are subtle compared to the repertoire of possible healthy brain dynamics. Here, we investigate if such interictal abnormalities become more salient by quantitatively accounting for the range of healthy brain dynamics in a location-specific manner. To this end, we constructed a normative map of brain dynamics, in terms of relative band power, from interictal intracranial recordings from 234 subjects (21,598 electrode contacts). We then compared interictal recordings from 62 patients with epilepsy to the normative map to identify abnormal regions. We hypothesised that if the most abnormal regions were spared by surgery, then patients would be more likely to experience continued seizures post-operatively. We first confirmed that the spatial variations of band power in the normative map across brain regions were consistent with healthy variations reported in the literature. Second, when accounting for the normative variations, regions which were spared by surgery were more abnormal than those resected only in patients with persistent post-operative seizures (t=-3.6, p=0.0003), confirming our hypothesis. Third, we found that this effect discriminated patient outcomes (AUC=0.75 p=0.0003). Normative mapping is a well-established practice in neuroscientific research. Our study suggests that this approach is feasible to detect interictal abnormalities in intracranial EEG, and of potential clinical value to identify pathological tissue in epilepsy. Finally, we make our normative intracranial map publicly available to facilitate future investigations in epilepsy and beyond.

preprint2020arXiv

Reliability and comparability of human brain structural covariance networks

Structural covariance analysis is a widely used structural MRI analysis method which characterises the co-relations of morphology between brain regions over a group of subjects. To our knowledge, little has been investigated in terms of the comparability of results between different data sets or the reliability of results over the same subjects in different rescan sessions, image resolutions, or FreeSurfer versions. In terms of comparability, our results show substantial differences in the structural covariance matrix between data sets of age- and sex-matched healthy human adults. These differences persist after site correction, they are exacerbated by low sample sizes, and they are most pronounced when using average cortical thickness as a morphological measure. Down-stream graph theoretic analyses further show statistically significant differences. In terms of reliability, substantial differences were also found when comparing repeated scan sessions of the same subjects, and image resolutions and FreeSurfer versions of the same image. We could further estimate the relative measurement error and showed that it is largest when using thickness. With simulated data, we argue that cortical thickness is least reliable because of larger relative measurement errors. Practically, we make the following recommendations (1) pooling subjects across sites into one group should be avoided, particularly if sites differ in image resolutions, demographics, or preprocessing; (2) surface area and volume should be preferred as morphological measures over cortical thickness; (3) a large number of subjects should be used to estimate structural covariance; (4) measurement error should be assessed where repeated measurements are available; (5) if combining sites is critical, univariate site-correction is insufficient, but error covariance should be explicitly measured and modelled.