Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 11;19(6):e0304115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304115

Electroencephalogram synchronization measure as a predictive biomarker of Vagus nerve stimulation response in refractory epilepsy: A retrospective study

Venethia Danthine 1,*, Lise Cottin 2, Alexandre Berger 1,5, Enrique Ignacio Germany Morrison 1,4, Giulia Liberati 1,6, Susana Ferrao Santos 1,3, Jean Delbeke 1, Antoine Nonclercq 2, Riëm El Tahry 1,3,4
Editor: Ayataka Fujimoto7
PMCID: PMC11166337  PMID: 38861500

Abstract

There are currently no established biomarkers for predicting the therapeutic effectiveness of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS). Given that neural desynchronization is a pivotal mechanism underlying VNS action, EEG synchronization measures could potentially serve as predictive biomarkers of VNS response. Notably, an increased brain synchronization in delta band has been observed during sleep–potentially due to an activation of thalamocortical circuitry, and interictal epileptiform discharges are more frequently observed during sleep. Therefore, investigation of EEG synchronization metrics during sleep could provide a valuable insight into the excitatory-inhibitory balance in a pro-epileptogenic state, that could be pathological in patients exhibiting a poor response to VNS. A 19-channel-standard EEG system was used to collect data from 38 individuals with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) who were candidates for VNS implantation. An EEG synchronization metric–the Weighted Phase Lag Index (wPLI)—was extracted before VNS implantation and compared between sleep and wakefulness, and between responders (R) and non-responders (NR). In the delta band, a higher wPLI was found during wakefulness compared to sleep in NR only. However, in this band, no synchronization difference in any state was found between R and NR. During sleep and within the alpha band, a negative correlation was found between wPLI and the percentage of seizure reduction after VNS implantation. Overall, our results suggest that patients exhibiting a poor VNS efficacy may present a more pathological thalamocortical circuitry before VNS implantation. EEG synchronization measures could provide interesting insights into the prerequisites for responding to VNS, in order to avoid unnecessary implantations in patients showing a poor therapeutic efficacy.

1. Introduction

Epilepsy is a neurological disease characterized by an unusual excitation of neurons, leading to a hypersynchronous state and cerebral dysfunction, resulting in the occurrence of seizures. If the epilepsy is refractory, patients are referred to an epilepsy center for a presurgical evaluation. If resective surgery is not possible, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) can be offered as an add-on treatment. While response to VNS may increase over time [13], after 2 to 4 years of VNS therapy, it is known that about 60% of implanted patients will experience a 50% seizure reduction—a group referred to as Responders (R) [13]. However, the mechanisms of action remain incompletely known, and until now, no predictive biomarkers can establish individual VNS response before the implantation. Using various recording techniques—including low-density scalp EEG [46] or stereo-EEG [7], it has been suggested that VNS reduces epileptic susceptibility by decreasing excitability of the cortex. Indeed, VNS is thought to partially exert its anti-seizure effects through the activation of widespread thalamocortical connections via the activation of the Locus Coeruleus (LC)—noradrenergic system [8], receiving projections from the Nucleus Tractus Solitarius (NTS) [9].

In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in exploring the functional interconnections among brain regions using functional connectivity (FC) analyses [10]. FC analyses highlighted pathological functional organizations in an array of neurological diseases [1114], including epilepsy [15, 16].

In epilepsy research, several studies used EEG-derived FC metrics with the aim of 1) improving diagnosis [17, 18], 2) predicting the occurrence of seizures [19], and/or 3) assessing the effect of different therapies [5, 20, 21]. While various FC measures exist, the metrics focusing on the coupling of signal phases are known as phase synchronization measures [22]. Previous studies that used EEG-based phase synchronization measures (weighted Phase Lag Index–wPLI, Phase Lag Index–PLI, or Phase Locking Value—PLV) revealed a desynchronization effect with acute VNS administration [46].

In particular, one study has specifically noted that this desynchronization occurs during sleep [6]. This interest in sleep stems from sleep physiology, particularly stage 2 of sleep. Indeed, during NREM sleep, thalamo-cortical oscillatory phenomena–including sleep spindles and, to a lesser extent, K-complexes—are observed, and are typically found during sleep stage N2 [2325]. These oscillations have been theorized to mirror certain thalamocortical circuits implicated in the generation of pathological epilepsy oscillatory phenomena, such as spike-wave discharges [26, 27].

However, studies investigating EEG-derived phase synchronization measures to predict VNS response before the implantation remain limited. A study conducted in 88 pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) during wakefulness built a classification model based on clinical data as well as synchronization features (wPLI, PLI and PLV). The model reached a classification accuracy of 75.5% with a precision of 80.8% in a discovery cohort (N = 70). In the validation cohort, the prediction model demonstrated an accuracy of 61.1% (N = 18). When only the EEG metrics were considered independently from clinical data, a higher PLI was observed in R compared to non-responders (NR, < 50% reduction in seizure frequency) for the high-beta band, while wPLI values did not differ between both groups [28]. A second study investigating awake EEG phase synchronization via the PLI before and after implantation could not discriminate R from NR based on frequencies between 0.1 Hz and 30 Hz [29]. Another study that investigated the power spectrum of EEG bands, found an abnormal reactivity in the alpha rhythm under photic stimulation and hyperventilation before implantation in R. The authors suggested that differential neuronal excitability and synaptic transmission could exist among patients, and could influence the therapeutic response [30].

As VNS acts through thalamocortical activation [3135] sharing similar anatomical sites with sleep processes [2325], investigation of FC metrics during sleep could give an insight into the prerequisites for responding to VNS. A previous work from our laboratory found a higher desynchronization in the theta band during sleep in R compared to NR [6]. As this difference was state-specific, these results could indicate that VNS may exert its anti-seizure effects differently between sleep and wakefulness.

Based on these findings, one could hypothesize that the sleep EEG data obtained prior to the implantation might offer predictive features into VNS response. Moreover, it could be hypothesized that NR may exhibit an inherently disordered sleep pattern reflected in altered EEG phase synchronization, partly due to pathological thalamocortical circuitry. Indeed, polysomnography (PSG) findings suggest that sleep quality correlates with a less severe epilepsy and better clinical effects in DRE [36, 37].

Consequently, in order to develop predictive biomarkers of VNS response, this study aims to extract EEG-based synchronization metrics before VNS implantation and compare them during sleep and wakefulness and between R and NR. This study constitutes the first investigation using the wPLI–a metric known to be more sensitive to true neural synchronization due to its insensitivity to noise [38, 39]—to investigate EEG phase synchronization in DRE patients during wakefulness and sleep before the implantation of a VNS device.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Study population

We reviewed the medical records of the patients retrospectively starting November 1st 2021. Medical records of patients from the epilepsy surgery database of Saint Luc University Hospital were screened between January 1st, 2014 and January 1st, 2019. Inclusion criteria for the study were: (i) diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE); (ii) received a cervical VNS implant (DemiPulse Model 103 or DemiPulse Duo Model 104, AspireHC Model 105 or AspireSR Model 106; LivaNova, Inc., London, United Kingdom LivaNova, London, UK) between 2015 and 2021; (iii) aged between 18 and 75 years; (iv) underwent a video-EEG monitoring of at least 48h with a simultaneous electrocardiogram (ECG) before VNS implantation which was accessible for analysis. Patients with seizure reduction after VNS implantation concomitant to a change of medication have been excluded. Of the 110 patients implanted for the first time, 38 met all the inclusion criteria. Patients were classified either as R (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) or as NR (< 50% seizure frequency reduction) based on the assessment of clinical records one year after the implantation. Partial responders (PR– 30–50% seizure frequency reduction) were included in the NR group for the analyses. Of the 38 patients included, 27 kept seizure diaries from which it was possible to calculate the exact seizure frequency reduction instead of performing a binary R/NR classification.

Video-EEG recordings were performed at Saint-Luc University Hospital or William Lennox Center (Ottignies, Belgium), with a Deltamed® system (Natus Europe, Paris, France). Signals were digitized at a sampling rate of 256 Hz. Nineteen scalp electrodes ("Fp1", "F3", "F7", "C3", "T3", "T5", "P3", "O1", "Fp2", "F4", "F8", "C4", "T4", "T6", "P4", "O2", "Fz", "Cz", "Pz") were used and positioned according to the 10–20 system. EEG traces were reviewed for each patient to ensure that no seizure or status epilepticus occurred at least 3h preceding the epochs selection, since it could significantly alter brain synchronicity [40, 41].

A minimum of 7 to a maximum of 10 EEG epochs of 10 seconds were collected in two different states: (i) calm wakefulness, without any evident motor activity (including noticeable eye blinks and movement artifacts as well as major interictal epileptic activity); (ii) stage 2 NREM (N2) sleep. Sleep epoch selection was performed upon visual analysis, using the presence of sleep spindles and/or K-complexes as determinants for the N2 stage labeling.

EEG processing was carried out in MATLAB R2021a (Mathworks, Natick, USA), using in-house developed scripts and the Letswave 6 toolbox (UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium) [6].

EEG pre-processing was completed by re-referencing to the common average [42] of the 19 selected EEG channels. Band-pass filtering (4th-order Butterworth filter) was applied to keep the frequencies of interest between 0.5 and 30 Hz.

The study was conducted after approval by the local Ethics Committee (Commission d’Ethique Hospital-Facultaire of Saint-Luc University Hospital/UCLouvain) (2018/07NOV/416). The Ethical Committee authorized the realization of the present retrospective study, as patients included agreed upon sharing data for academic studies at their first contact with Saint-Luc University Hospital. Data were collected, anonymized, and processed according to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidelines.

2.2 Connectivity analysis: EEG synchronization measures

As we introduced earlier, amongst the various existing connectivity measurements, we have chosen to focus on the phase-synchronization measures. These measures are used to quantify phase synchronization between EEG signals [43, 44]. The PLI is one of the most well-known metrics. This metric estimates the asymmetry of distribution of phase differences between two signals and is partially corrected for volume conduction [45]. The wPLI improves the PLI by weighting the phase differences by their magnitude, reducing the risk of bias introduced by small noise perturbations and making the wPLI more sensitive to detect true neural synchronization [38, 39].

This measure is based on the cross-spectrum between EEG signals, representative of a frequency domain cross-correlation, and computed as follows:

X=x(t)y(t)eΔφ(t)

Where Δφ(t) is the phase difference between the signals at time t.

The wPLI is obtained by computing the cross-spectrum on 1-s time windows, extracting a quantity of interest from it, and then averaging on these small-time windows via the expectation operator. This is described in the following equation:

wPLI = |EImX.sgnImX|E[ImX]

Where:

  • E[] is the expectation operator over time

  • Sgn is the signum function

  • Im() is the imaginary component

As it is based on the cross-spectrum, the wPLI is defined in the frequency domain. Its values for the classical narrow frequency bands of interest, including delta (0.5–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz), alpha (8–13 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz), and broadband (0.5–30 Hz) are obtained by averaging on the subset of frequencies constituting these ranges.

2.2.1 Whole brain analysis

First, the connectivity analysis is considered at the whole-brain level by investigating all possible pairwise combinations of EEG signals amongst the 19 electrodes. For each patient, this results in a 19 x 19 matrix of wPLI values for each state (awake or sleep) for every frequency band of interest.

The Dijkstra algorithm was used to highlight the connections on the shortest paths between any pair of electrodes (described here as nodes), considered as the most relevant. These connections were kept in the final network, while the others were put to zero [46]. Finally, these matrices were averaged across all channel pairs to obtain one mean global wPLI per state and frequency band for each patient.

2.2.2 Topographic analysis

We performed regional analyses by pooling specific subgroups of electrodes and computing connectivity values restricted to those regions. Seven subgroups were established (Fig 1). Each subgroup’s mean wPLI was computed and compared per group, per state, and frequency band of interest following the previous analysis.

Fig 1. Regional electrode pooling for connectivity analysis.

Fig 1

Seven different regions were defined: three per hemisphere (frontal, parietal and occipital) and one central region [6].

2.3 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using R® (version 4.1Ff.2). Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population were statistically compared between the R and NR groups, using the Mann–Whitney U-test for the continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for the categorical variables.

To avoid multicollinearity problems inherent in variables, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was computed for the predictors included in each model, and VIF values were lower than 5 (i.e., a low correlation between the predictors). Additionally, the Cook distance was computed to detect potential outliers. This technique did not detect any outliers.

A Linear Mixed Model (LMM) was used to analyze wPLI (used as the dependent variable in the LMM), in terms of state (awake/sleep), VNS response (R/NR), and interaction between the two (state/future response), using the ‘lmer’ function (R package ‘lme4’). Covariates were added to the model to control for age, sex, number of anti-seizure medications (ASM), type of epilepsy (focal or generalized), and benzodiazepine intake. The subject ID was used as a random variable to tease out the influence of the inter-subject variability. To confirm the interest of a model using a random effect, it is necessary to check whether the likelihood of the model is improved when the random effect is added compared with a model without a random effect, using the REstricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). The normality of residues of the model was verified with the Shapiro test. A post-hoc analysis using Chi-square tests (‘testInteraction’ function in R, package ‘phia’) was performed to limit false positive findings, using False Discovery Rate FDR correction for multiple comparisons [47]. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.

In order to investigate the continuous measure of seizure frequency reduction from baseline in both states, a multiple linear regression (using the ‘lm’ function in R, package ‘Stat’) was built in the subgroup of patients for which the exact seizure frequency reductions were available using the backward method. The relationship between wPLI and future percentage of seizure reduction (after one year of VNS) was investigated, correcting for the number of anti-seizure medications (ASM) and the patient’s age at time of the EEG acquisition. The level of significance was set at p<0.05. Visual inspection, R2, and Root-Mean-Squared Error (RMSE) of the models were assessed as a measure of the suitability of the fit.

3. Results

3.1 Study population: Clinical characteristics

Thirty-eight patients (20 females and 18 males; 12 R and 26 NR—including 13 PR) were eligible for inclusion after a review of our clinical database. A comparative table of demographics and clinical features of the R and NR groups can be found in Table 1. No statistical significance was found between groups, except for the type of epilepsy.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population.

Variables R (n = 12) Mean (SD) NR (n = 26) Mean (SD) p-value
Sex * 7F – 5M 13F – 13M 0.92
Age (years) 37.9 (12.8) 37.4 (13.6) 0.92
Age of Epilepsy onset (years) 16 (11.07) 14.24 (16.5) 0.71
Epilepsy duration (years) 21.18 (16.2) 23.52 (16.5) 0.70
Epilepsy type <2.2×10–16
Foca 12 18
Generalized 0 7
Both 0 1
Localization 0.66
Temporal (T) 7 7
Extra-temporal (ET) 4 16
Both 1 3
Mean no. of ASMs used 3 (1.17) 2.6 (0.77) 0.24
No. using benzodiazepines 3/12 3/26 0.38
No. using antidepressants (SSRI, TCA) 3/12 4/26 0.38
Epilepsy lateralization 0.75
Right 1 4
Left 6 12
Bilateral 5 10

F: Females; M: Males; ASM: Anti-Seizure Medication; SSRI: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor; TCA: Tricyclic Antidepressant Agent

*Sex assigned at birth

3.2 Connectivity analysis: EEG synchronization measures

3.2.1 Whole brain analysis

The usefulness of a random variable in the model has been confirmed in two bands: delta (p = 0.006**) and alpha (p = 0.04*) bands.

In the delta band analysis, the LMM revealed that the state variable exhibited a significant effect on wPLI (p = 0.016*), with lower wPLI values found in sleep compared to wakefulness (S1 Table). On the other hand, the response variable showed no significant impact on wPLI (p = 0.29), indicating no difference in wPLI between responders (R) and non-responders (NR). Moreover, the interaction between State and Response was not significant (p = 0.27), suggesting that our model cannot distinguish between R and NR within each state in delta band. Utilizing LMM allows us to conduct post-hoc tests, known as contrasts, within the model. These contrasts enable specific comparisons of interest between levels of categorical variables in the LMM. In the delta band model, contrasts revealed that higher wPLI values were observed during wakefulness compared to sleep, but only for non-responders (p = 0.022*). No significant difference in wPLI between wakefulness and sleep for responders was found (p = 0.71). Please refer to Fig 2 for a visual representation.

Fig 2. Boxplots of the wPLI in the delta band.

Fig 2

(A) NR patients demonstrated a higher wPLI in wakefulness compared to sleep while (B) no difference is found between states in R patients. ⋆ Significant result at the level p<0.05 in post-hoc comparison”.

In the analysis of the alpha band, a significant effect of the state on wPLI (p = 0.044*) is found, while neither the response (p = 0.57) nor the interaction showed significant impacts (p = 0.17). We did not observe any significant results in the contrast analysis. However, a trend emerged during sleep between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) (p = 0.058), with NR exhibiting a higher wPLI compared to R, while no trend is found in wakefulness (p = 0.57). Please refer to Fig 3 for a visual representation.

Fig 3. Boxplots of the wPLI in the alpha band.

Fig 3

(A) In wakefulness, no difference was found between groups while (B) in sleep, a higher wPLI is found in NR group compared to R. ☆ Trend of significance in post-hoc comparison (p = 0.058).

More detailed information about the LMM can be found in S1 and S2 Tables.

No significant difference was found between the R and NR groups using an LMM in the other bandwidths.

To mitigate biases inherent of a binary classification and investigate in more detail the trend found in alpha band in sleep, our aim was to address the specific percentage of seizure reduction through a regression analysis.

For patients in whom the exact percentage of seizure reduction was available (N = 27), the multiple linear regression in the alpha band during sleep revealed a significant association between percentage of seizure reduction (p = 0.014*) and global wPLI, indicating a decrease in wPLI among patients exhibiting a stronger response to VNS (i.e., greater seizure reduction). Secondly, age demonstrated a significant correlation with wPLI (p = 0.005**), revealing higher wPLI levels among older patients. Interestingly, the number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) did not yield a significant effect on wPLI but contributed to enhancing the accuracy of the model (adjusted R-squared: 0.34; statistical comparison of the linear regressions can be found in S3 Table). For visual representation, a linear regression between the wPLI in the alpha band during sleep and the percentage of seizure reduction is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Linear regression between wPLI in the alpha band during sleep and the percentage of seizure reduction.

Fig 4

During sleep, a lower wPLI was observed in patients with a higher reduction in seizure frequency.

3.2.2 Topographic analysis

Considering that the results were significant only in the alpha and delta bands, we focused on these two bands only for the regional sub-analysis (Fig 1). No result remained significant after FDR correction, neither between groups (R-NR) nor between states (awake-sleep).

4. Discussion

Using wPLI as a connectivity metrics [22], this study attempts to identify predictive markers of VNS response by analyzing pre-implantation EEG data during wakefulness and sleep. Despite the absence of a clear predictive marker for VNS efficacy, this study points to certain physiological factors that appear to impact the therapeutic response. Indeed, we found a higher wPLI (i.e. may be interpreted as higher FC) in the delta band during wakefulness compared to sleep, specifically in NR. Conversely, a higher reduction in seizure frequency with VNS is correlated with reduced alpha band wPLI during sleep before VNS implantation. Although the physiological interpretation of these findings remains challenging, our results may reflect more severe pathological brain alterations in NR before the implantation.

Only a few studies analyzed phase synchronization measurements to predict VNS response. A first study using PLI found no difference between R and NR in the range of 0.5–30 Hz [29]. Another study conducted in children before the implantation observed an increased global PLI in R group in wakefulness, specifically in the high-beta band, compared to the NR group. While other synchrony measures, such as PLV and wPLI, showed no differences between the two groups during wakefulness, EEG-derived synchronization metrics were not investigated during sleep [28].

Interestingly, no differences between wakefulness and sleep was found among our patients in global wPLI for the alpha band activity. These findings were somewhat unexpected, considering the existing literature that underscores the significance of alpha rhythm in consciousness in healthy patients. At first glance, our results seem to be inconsistent with previous findings. In healthy participants a higher connectivity within the alpha band was observed during wakefulness compared to sleep. During sleep, the enhancement of wPLI was found in the delta band instead [4850].

However, studies focusing on epileptic patients beyond the scope of VNS response have suggested that an increased connectivity may reflect pathological brain states [5153]. Using high-density EEG and resting-state functional MRI, Carboni et al. compared global efficiency derived from partial directed coherence EEG measures between epileptic patients and healthy subjects. They identified an increased connectivity in epileptic patients compared to healthy subjects. The authors suggested that an increased global efficiency could reflect a more extensive pathological (epileptic) network within the brain [51].

Similarly, Nayak et al. investigated an EEG phase synchronization index (SI) within awake and sleep EEG recordings. Their findings revealed a higher SI within the delta and theta frequency bands amongst epileptic patients compared to controls across both wakefulness and sleep states, irrespective of the epilepsy subtype. These results suggested that an augmented synchronization could serve as a distinctive trait of epileptogenic brain networks [53].

Likewise, using mutual information to compute different graph measures (including global efficiency, characteristic path length, average clustering coefficient, and modularity), Davis et al. found a higher connectivity in almost all bands during sleep (including the alpha band) in children with tuberous sclerosis complex who will develop epileptic spasms. Hence, the authors suggested that an over-connectivity may reflect a more pathological network [52]. In addition, the study of Brazdil et al. pointed out the potential importance of alpha rhythm as a VNS response predictor in the awake condition after photic stimulation and hyperventilation [30]. Considering the association between thalamocortical circuitry, their significance during sleep (especially in stage 2) [24, 54], and the alpha rhythm [55], it is plausible that this frequency band could potentially serve as an indicator of abnormalities within these circuits, even during sleep stage 2.

In line with these studies, our results indicate an inverse relationship between the wPLI and the exact number of seizure reduction after VNS implantation. Overall, our results support the hypothesis that patients with a more severely affected epileptic network are less likely to respond to VNS.

Other studies have also investigated the prediction of VNS response using other connectivity measures or techniques. Kim et al. employed the preoperative EEG-based Direct Transfer Function (DTF) to characterize brain connectivity in DRE patients compared to healthy subjects. While a similar connectivity profile was found between R to VNS and healthy subjects, NR showed a higher difference with the healthy population [56]. In addition to EEG, pre-implant MEG data has also been used to define response before VNS implantation. A study used PLV to compute graph measures (e.g., modularity, transitivity, and characteristic path length) [57]. Another study used machine learning techniques to identify good candidates for VNS implantation using a combination of structural (using diffusion tensor imaging) and functional (using resting-state MEG) metrics [34]. These techniques showed a greater structural connectivity in left thalamocortical, limbic, and association fibers and a greater functional connectivity in a network composed of the left thalamic, insular, and temporal regions [34]. Both studies underline a closer connectivity pattern between future R and controls compared to NR [34, 57]. Finally, using resting-state functional MRI data and a machine learning approach, Ibrahim et al. showed an increased connectivity of the thalami to the anterior cingulate cortex and left insula that was associated with greater VNS efficacy [33]. These latest studies demonstrate the value of studying deep brain regions for predicting VNS response, which is not possible with scalp EEG. This could partly explain the lack of highly significant results in our study.

Finally, in post-implantation studies, phase synchronization measures have shown their value as a marker of response to VNS. In this way, utilizing the PLI as a connectivity measure, Bodin et al. discovered that during wakefulness, R exhibited reduced synchrony in delta and alpha bands compared to NR [4]. Notably, the ON periods were consistently associated with lower PLI values than the OFF periods in R and NR groups. These results reflect the acute desynchronizing effect of VNS. This is consistent with the results of Sangare et al., who reported a lower PLI in delta, theta, and beta bands acutely during the ON period compared to the OFF period in R only [5]. In addition, Vespa et al. computed an OFF/ON ratio based on the averaged whole-brain wPLI in wakefulness vs. stage 2 sleep and found a greater OFF/ON wPLI ratio within the theta band in R compared to NR [6].

4.1 Limitations and future perspectives

First, it is important to mention that our selection of N2 sleep epochs was based solely on the EEG data available, without including PSG, as per AASM (American Academy of Sleep Medicine) guidelines. While we cannot exclude the possibility that transitional N1 or N3 periods may have been partially included in the chosen EEG traces, exploring other sleep states (e.g., NREM N1-N3 and REM sleep) would be interesting. Indeed, some studies have indicated that VNS can also influence REM sleep [58, 59], and there may be links between REM sleep mechanisms and certain forms of epilepsy [26, 60, 61]. It must be noted that we were unable to rule out the contamination of selected epochs entirely by epileptiform activity, as concomitant intracranial EEG recordings were not available. Such epileptiform activity might have influenced background EEG rhythms and connectivity.

Additionally, in our dataset, a significant distinction arises between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) concerning epilepsy type. Nevertheless, we maintain that this factor does not impact our primary findings. Indeed, this imbalance of epilepsy type between the groups could be due to our relatively low sample size, while previous studies did not find association between VNS response and epilepsy type [4, 6]. Furthermore, Sangare et al. investigated the PLI difference between focal and generalized epilepsy and no difference was found [5]. Moreover, we have addressed this variable in our models to ensure its control in our statistical analyses. No effect of epilepsy type was found in the mixed model analysis or in the regression model analysis (S3 Table).”

We acknowledge that our study was performed retrospectively on a heterogeneous population in terms of type of epilepsy, age, gender, or medication. Furthermore, conducting subgroup analyses would have been impractical due to our study’s relatively small sample size. Given the inherent patient-to-patient variability and the interest of following patient before and after the VNS surgery, we propose a longitudinal follow-up study to address the temporal variability of the wPLI and the impact of VNS on this measure. Finally, the evaluation of connectivity as limited by the fact that we only used a single connectivity measure, from one family. Comparing several connectivity or network measures from different families (based on different mathematical principles) might better reflect physiological functioning, allowing us to predict a potential VNS response.

5. Conclusion

This study aimed to find a predictor for clinical response to VNS in epileptic patients using EEG phase synchronization metrics. The results of this investigation show that DRE patients, in particular NR, have a greater functional connectivity in the delta band during wakefulness compared to sleep. In addition, a higher seizure reduction is correlated with a lower alpha band connectivity in sleep. Overall, our results support the hypothesis of a more pathological brain in NR, which could explain the lower therapeutic efficacy of VNS. However, although wPLI may help to establish VNS response after the implantation, this connectivity metric alone may not be adapted for predicting VNS response. Further studies focusing on a physiological explanation of the connectivity measures used are needed to explore the full potential of connectivity metrics.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Linear mixed models using wPLi as dependent variable in delta band with and without covariables.

(DOCX)

pone.0304115.s001.docx (17.9KB, docx)
S2 Table. Linear mixed models using wPLi as dependent variable in alpha band with and without covariables.

(DOCX)

pone.0304115.s002.docx (17.6KB, docx)
S3 Table. Models of multiple regression analysis using wPLI as a dependent variable in alpha band in sleep.

(DOCX)

pone.0304115.s003.docx (30.2KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This research has benefited from a statistical consultancy service with the Statistical Methodology and Computing Service, a technical platform at UCLouvain–SMCS/LIDAM, UCLouvain.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions. Data are available from the Ethics Committee of Catholic University of Louvain – Saint-Luc University Hospital (contact via commission.ethique-saintluc@uclouvain.be) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

VD is supported by a Fond de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS) with a FRIA grant. EIGM is funded by the Walloon Excellence in Life Sciences and Biotechnology (WELBIO) department of the WEL Research Institute (X.2001.22). RET is funded by the Walloon Excellence in Life Sciences and Biotechnology (WELBIO) department of the WEL Research Institute (X.2001.22) and the Queen Elisabeth Medical Foundation (QEMF). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kostov KH, Kostov H, Larsson PG, Henning O, Eckmann CAC, Lossius MI, et al. Norwegian population-based study of long-term effects, safety, and predictors of response of vagus nerve stimulation treatment in drug-resistant epilepsy: The NORPulse study. Epilepsia. 2022. Feb 1;63(2):414–25. doi: 10.1111/epi.17152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kuba R, Brázdil M, Kalina M, Procházka T, Hovorka J, Nežádal T, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation: Longitudinal follow-up of patients treated for 5 years. Seizure. 2009. May;18(4):269–74. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2008.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Englot DJ, Rolston JD, Wright CW, Hassnain KH, Chang EF. Rates and Predictors of Seizure Freedom with Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Intractable Epilepsy. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(3):345–53. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bodin C, Aubert S, Daquin G, Carron R, Scavarda D, McGonigal A, et al. Responders to vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in refractory epilepsy have reduced interictal cortical synchronicity on scalp EEG. Epilepsy Res. 2015. Jul 1;113:98–103. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sangare A, Marchi A, Pruvost E, Soufflet C, Crepon B, Ramdani C, et al. The effectiveness of VNS in drug-resistant epilepsy correlates with VNS induced EEG desynchronization. Brain Connect. 2020;1–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vespa S, Heyse J, Stumpp L, Liberati G, Ferrao Santos S, Rooijakkers H, et al. Vagus Nerve Stimulation Elicits Sleep EEG Desynchronization and Network Changes in Responder Patients in Epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics. 2021. Oct 1;18(4):2623–38. doi: 10.1007/s13311-021-01124-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bartolomei F, Bonini F, Vidal E, Trébuchon A, Lagarde S, Lambert I, et al. How does vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) change EEG brain functional connectivity? Epilepsy Res. 2016. Oct 1;126:141–6. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Berger A, Vespa S, Dricot L, Dumoulin M, Iachim E, Doguet P, et al. How Is the Norepinephrine System Involved in the Antiepileptic Effects of Vagus Nerve Stimulation? Vol. 15, Frontiers in Neuroscience. Frontiers Media S.A.; 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Krahl SE, Clark KB. Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: A review of central mechanisms. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 4):S255–9. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.103015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Friston KJ, Frith CD, Frackowiak RSJ. Time-Dependent Changes in Effective Connectivity Measured With PET. Vol. 1, + Human Brain Mapping. 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sun S, Chen H, Shao X, Liu L, Li X, Hu B. EEG Based Depression Recognition by Combining Functional Brain Network and Traditional Biomarkers. In: Proceedings—2020 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, BIBM 2020. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2020. p. 2074–81.
  • 12.Fingelkurts AA, Fingelkurts AA, Rytsälä H, Suominen K, Isometsä E, Kähkönen S. Impaired functional connectivity at EEG alpha and theta frequency bands in major depression. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007. Mar;28(3):247–61. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Briels CT, Briels CT, Schoonhoven DN, Schoonhoven DN, Stam CJ, De Waal H, et al. Reproducibility of EEG functional connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020. Jun 3;12(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fasiello E, Gorgoni M, Scarpelli S, Alfonsi V, Ferini Strambi L, De Gennaro L. Functional connectivity changes in insomnia disorder: A systematic review. Vol. 61, Sleep Medicine Reviews. W.B. Saunders Ltd; 2022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Catani M, Ffytche DH. The rises and falls of disconnection syndromes. Vol. 128, Brain. Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 2224–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009. Mar;10(3):186–98. doi: 10.1038/nrn2575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Japaridze N, Muthuraman M, Moeller F, Boor R, Anwar AR, Deuschl G, et al. Neuronal networks in west syndrome as revealed by source analysis and renormalized partial directed coherence. Brain Topogr. 2013. Jan;26(1):157–70. doi: 10.1007/s10548-012-0245-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Suzuki H, Otsubo H, Yokota N, Nishijima S, Go C, Carter Snead O, et al. Epileptogenic modulation index and synchronization in hypsarrhythmia of West syndrome secondary to perinatal arterial ischemic stroke. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2021. May 1;132(5):1185–93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.12.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pavel AM, O’Toole JM, Proietti J, Livingstone V, Mitra S, Marnane WP, et al. Machine learning for the early prediction of infants with electrographic seizures in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Epilepsia. 2023. Feb 1;64(2):456–68. doi: 10.1111/epi.17468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ricci L, Assenza G, Pulitano P, Simonelli V, Vollero L, Lanzone J, et al. Measuring the effects of first antiepileptic medication in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy: Predictive value of quantitative-EEG analysis. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2021. Jan 1;132(1):25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shrey DW, Kim McManus O, Rajaraman R, Ombao H, Hussain SA, Lopour BA. Strength and stability of EEG functional connectivity predict treatment response in infants with epileptic spasms. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2018. Oct 1;129(10):2137–48. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.07.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.van Mierlo P, Papadopoulou M, Carrette E, Boon P, Vandenberghe S, Vonck K, et al. Functional brain connectivity from EEG in epilepsy: Seizure prediction and epileptogenic focus localization. Prog Neurobiol [Internet]. 2014;121:19–35. Available from: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2014.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Steriade M, Mccormick DA, Sejnowski TJ. Thalamocortical Oscillations in the Sleeping and Aroused Brain [Internet]. www.sciencemag.org [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 24.Purcell SM, Manoach DS, Demanuele C, Cade BE, Mariani S, Cox R, et al. Characterizing sleep spindles in 11,630 individuals from the National Sleep Research Resource. Nat Commun. 2017. Jun 26;8. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Platt B, Riedel G. The cholinergic system, EEG and sleep. Vol. 221, Behavioural Brain Research. 2011. p. 499–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sinha SR. Basic Mechanisms of Sleep and Epilepsy. Vol. 28, Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology •. 2011. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182120d41 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bernard C, Frauscher B, Gelinas J, Timofeev I. Sleep, oscillations, and epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2023; doi: 10.1111/epi.17664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ma J, Wang Z, Cheng T, Hu Y, Qin X, Wang W, et al. A prediction model integrating synchronization biomarkers and clinical features to identify responders to vagus nerve stimulation among pediatric patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. CNS Neurosci Ther [Internet]. 2022. Jul 27; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cns.13923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fraschini M, Puligheddu M, Demuru M, Polizzi L, Maleci A, Tamburini G, et al. VNS induced desynchronization in gamma bands correlates with positive clinical outcome in temporal lobe pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Neurosci Lett [Internet]. 2013;536(1):14–8. Available from: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.12.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brázdil M, Doležalová I, Koritáková E, Chládek J, Roman R, Pail M, et al. EEG reactivity predicts individual efficacy of vagal nerve stimulation in intractable epileptics. Front Neurol. 2019;10(MAY). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Martlé V, Peremans K, Raedt R, Vermeire S, Vonck K, Boon P, et al. Regional brain perfusion changes during standard and microburst vagus nerve stimulation in dogs. Epilepsy Res. 2014;108(4):616–22. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vonck K, De Herdt V, Bosman T, Dedeurwaerdere S, Van Laere K, Boon P. Thalamic and limbic involvement in the mechanism of action of vagus nerve stimulation, a SPECT study. Seizure. 2008. Dec;17(8):699–706. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2008.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ibrahim GM, Sharma P, Hyslop A, Guillen MR, Morgan BR, Wong S, et al. Presurgical thalamocortical connectivity is associated with response to vagus nerve stimulation in children with intractable epilepsy. Neuroimage Clin [Internet]. 2017;16(September):634–42. Available from: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.09.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mithani K, Mikhail M, Morgan BR, Wong S, Weil AG, Deschenes S, et al. Connectomic Profiling Identifies Responders to Vagus Nerve Stimulation. Ann Neurol. 2019;86(5):743–53. doi: 10.1002/ana.25574 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hachem LD, Wong SM, Ibrahim GM. The vagus afferent network: emerging role in translational connectomics. Neurosurg Focus. 2018. Sep;45(3):E2. doi: 10.3171/2018.6.FOCUS18216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Proost R, Lagae L, Van Paesschen W, Jansen K. Sleep in children with refractory epilepsy and epileptic encephalopathies: A systematic review of literature. Vol. 38, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. W.B. Saunders Ltd; 2022. p. 53–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zanzmera P, Shukla G, Gupta A, Singh H, Goyal V, Srivastava A, et al. Markedly disturbed sleep in medically refractory compared to controlled epilepsy—A clinical and polysomnography study. Seizure. 2012. Sep;21(7):487–90. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2012.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Congedo M. Non-Parametric Synchronization Measures used in EEG and MEG Non-Parametric Synchronization Measures used in EEG and MEG ~ [Internet]. 2018. https://hal.science/hal-01868538v2
  • 39.Vinck M, Oostenveld R, Van Wingerden M, Battaglia F, Pennartz CMA. An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias. Neuroimage [Internet]. 2011;55(4):1548–65. Available from: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liang Y, Chen C, Li F, Yao D, Xu P, Yu L. Altered functional connectivity after epileptic seizure revealed by scalp EEG. Neural Plast. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8851415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rijal S, Corona L, Perry MS, Tamilia E, Madsen JR, Stone SSD, et al. Functional connectivity discriminates epileptogenic states and predicts surgical outcome in children with drug resistant epilepsy. Sci Rep. 2023. Dec 1;13(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36551-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ludwig KA, Miriani RM, Langhals NB, Joseph MD, Anderson DJ, Kipke DR. Using a common average reference to improve cortical neuron recordings from microelectrode arrays. J Neurophysiol. 2009. Mar;101(3):1679–89. doi: 10.1152/jn.90989.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lachaux JP, Rodriguez E, Martinerie J, Varela FJ. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Hum Brain Mapp. 1999;8(4):194–208. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4&lt;194::aid-hbm4&gt;3.0.co;2-c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hu L, Zhang Z. EEG Signal Processing and Feature Extraction.
  • 45.Stam CJ, Nolte G, Daffertshofer A. Phase lag index: assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007. Nov;28(11):1178–93. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dimitriadis SI, Laskaris NA, Tsirka V, Vourkas M, Micheloyannis S, Fotopoulos S. Tracking brain dynamics via time-dependent network analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2010. Oct 30;193(1):145–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.08.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Vol. 57, Source: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological). 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Imperatori LS, Cataldi J, Betta M, Ricciardi E, Ince RAA, Siclari F, et al. Cross-participant prediction of vigilance stages through the combined use of wPLI and wSMI EEG functional connectivity metrics. Sleep. 2021. May 1;44(5). doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Imperatori LS, Betta M, Cecchetti L, Canales-Johnson A, Ricciardi E, Siclari F, et al. EEG functional connectivity metrics wPLI and wSMI account for distinct types of brain functional interactions. Sci Rep. 2019. Dec 1;9(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45289-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Liao Y, Zhou G, Liang J, Zhang X, Guo X, Luo Y. Overall Population Generalities, Sex Differences, and Individual Differences in Sleep Electroencephalography Functional Connectivity. IEEE Access. 2019;7:160901–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Carboni M, De Stefano P, Vorderwülbecke BJ, Tourbier S, Mullier E, Rubega M, et al. Abnormal directed connectivity of resting state networks in focal epilepsy. Neuroimage Clin. 2020. Jan 1;27. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Davis PE, Kapur K, Filip-Dhima R, Trowbridge SK, Little E, Wilson A, et al. Increased electroencephalography connectivity precedes epileptic spasm onset in infants with tuberous sclerosis complex. Epilepsia. 2019;60(8):1721–32. doi: 10.1111/epi.16284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nayak CS, Mariyappa N, Majumdar KK, Ravi GS, Prasad PD, Nagappa M, et al. NREM Sleep and Antiepileptic Medications Modulate Epileptiform Activity by Altering Cortical Synchrony. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2018. Nov 1;49(6):417–24. doi: 10.1177/1550059417747436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Fernandez LMJ, Lüthi A. Sleep spindles: Mechanisms and functions. Physiol Rev. 2020. Apr 1;100(2):805–68. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00042.2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.da Silva FH Lopes, van Lierop THMT, Schrijer CF, van Leeuwen W Storm. Organization of thalamic and cortical alpha rhythms: Spectra and coherences. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1973;35(6):627–39. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(73)90216-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kim D, Kim T, Hwang Y, Lee CY, Joo EY, Seo DW, et al. Prediction of the Responsiveness to Vagus-Nerve Stimulation in Patients with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy via Directed-Transfer-Function Analysis of Their Perioperative Scalp EEGs. J Clin Med. 2022. Jul 1;11(13). doi: 10.3390/jcm11133695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Babajani-Feremi A, Noorizadeh N, Mudigoudar B, Wheless JW. Predicting seizure outcome of vagus nerve stimulation using MEG-based network topology. Neuroimage Clin. 2018. Jan 1;19:990–9. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.06.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Malow BA, Edwards; J, Marzec; M, Sagher; O, Ross; D, Fromes G. Vagus nerve stimulation reduces daytime sleepiness in epilepsy patients. 2001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 59.Rizzo P, Beelke M, De Carli F, Canovaro P, Nobili L, Robert A, et al. Modifications of sleep EEG induced by chronic vagus nerve stimulation in patients affected by refractory epilepsy. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2004;115(3):658–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Moore JL, Carvalho DZ, St Louis EK, Bazil C. Sleep and Epilepsy: a Focused Review of Pathophysiology, Clinical Syndromes, Co-morbidities, and Therapy. Vol. 18, Neurotherapeutics. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2021. p. 170–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ikoma Y, Takahashi Y, Sasaki D, Matsui K. Properties of REM sleep alterations with epilepsy. Brain. 2023. Jun 1;146(6):2431–42. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ayataka Fujimoto

23 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-43902Electroencephalogram Synchronization Measure as a Predictive Biomarker of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Response in Refractory Epilepsy: A Retrospective StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Danthine,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ayataka Fujimoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“I have read the journal's policy and one of the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Antoine Nonclercq reports being a shareholder of Synergia Medical SA, Belgium. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewers perceive this manuscript positively, as it holds significant value. Please respond earnestly to the reviewers' comments, as the content is highly meaningful.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study involved an analysis of 38 patients who underwent VNS implantation, aiming to identify predictive factors for VNS response by comparing EEG data between responders and non-responders. In particular, the authors assess brain synchronization by wPLI, considering that desynchronization is one of the mechanisms of VNS. Notably, the study uncovered an association between low wPLI during sleep and favorable seizure reduction. Given the absence of predictive biomarkers for VNS, this discovery holds substantial implications for clinical practice. However, the Introduction and Discussion are somewhat redundant, making it difficult to understand the main message of this study. Additionally, the presentation of results lacks adequate detail. Significant revisions are necessary before publication.

Comments (review invitation: Feb 12, 2024, and comment submission on Feb 16, 2024):

1. [Introduction/Discussion] Please describe the strengths or novelty of this research. What is the strong point compared to the previous studies with synchronization measurements such as PLI or wPLI?

2. [Introduction] The explanation of the mechanism of VNS seems redundant. There is no need to use several paragraphs to mention it.

3. [Introduction] It’s undesirable to use the term “hypothesize” to describe the ideas of other authors or articles. It would be better to use “hypothesize” only when describing your research hypothesis.

4. [Introduction] Please add more explanation of wPLI or PLI. Could you explain why these measurements are useful, citing past reports? It would clarify the importance of using these measurements in this study.

5. [Results] Due to the lack of explanation, it is hard to understand the results. An example is “For the delta band, the LMM revealed a significant effect of state (wakefulness/ sleep) (p=0.016*) but no effect of VNS response (p=0.29) nor an interaction between state and VNS response (p=0.27).”

・Does “a significant effect of state (wakefulness/sleep)” mean that there is a significant difference in wPLI between wake and sleep? Which states have higher wPLI?

・Does “no effect of VNS response (p=0.29)” mean that there is no difference in wPLI between VNS responders and non-responders?

・What does “an interaction between state and VNS response (p=0.27)” mean specifically?

Please describe the results in more detail or use Table, not just in this example but all results.

6. [Results] It would be better to add the information that a high wPLI means increased connectivity in addition to the results (Is my interpretation correct?). This is because many readers would be expected not to know what high wPLI means.

7. [Figure 2-4 legend] It would be nicer to describe an explanation of each result in Figure legend.

8. [Figure 3] It is not common to use symbols such as asterisks for results that are not significantly different. Please remove it as it is misleading.

9. [Discussion] Given that brain connectivity increases during sleep, wPLI during wake is considered to be lower than during sleep. Please discuss why the phenomenon opposite to the theory occurred.

10. [Discussion] The idea that more pathological connectivity is related to VNS non-responders seems to be inconsistent with the VNS mechanism. This is because VNS appears to alleviate the symptoms of epilepsy patients with high connectivity (=more pathological connectivity) through desynchronization. Please give a convincing explanation.

11. [General comment] Please double-check the grammar and logical development of the manuscript again.

12. [Minor comments]

・Brackets of “(Video-)EEG recordings were…” in 109 seems to be unnecessary.

・The use of the term “future” VNS response feels inappropriate in a retrospective study.

・Table 1: The use of “n°” is not common. It would be more understandable to use “no.” or “n”(italic).

・Table 1: It would be better to change “<2.2e-16” to “2.2×10-16” or “<0.001”.

・Results: What does the asterisk (for example, p=0.006*) mean? If unnecessary, please remove it.

Reviewer #2: Danthine et al. studied a predictor for clinical response to VNS in epileptic patients using EEG phase synchronization metrics. They mentioned DRE patients, in particular future non-responders, have a greater functional connectivity in the delta band during wakefulness compared to sleep.

Comments (invitation: February 11, 2024, and submission: February 18, 2024)

We want to congratulate the authors’ efforts. The manuscript is well written and easy to follow. None of the following comments are criticisms.

1) Abstract (line 28): Wouldn't the statement "especially in NR" be unnecessary since you later say that the difference between R and NR did not reach significance?

2) Abstract (line 31): I think that readers who solely read the abstract may not grasp the concept. Could you please elaborate on why future NRs may have a more pathological thalamocortical circuitry?

3) Introduction (line 86): It would be preferable to spell out the abbreviations for PSG when it is first mentioned.

4) Introduction (line 90-91): I understand what the authors are saying. And indeed, as the authors report, there was a negative correlation between the wPLI and the future percentage of seizure reduction after VNS implantation, only during sleep. In that case, it is natural to assume that changes have occurred in the postoperative EEG. Have you measured the postoperative EEG? If you did, please discuss this point.

5) Figure1 (line 168-169): The author may want to write “T4-C4” instead of “T4,Ca”.

6) Results (line 203 -204): R group is only focal epilepsy. I would appreciate it if you could discuss whether this affected the main finding (the difference in synchronization between two groups).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Keisuke Hatano

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 11;19(6):e0304115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304115.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Apr 2024

Please refer to the PDF document "Response to reviewers" that has been uploaded in the "Attach files" section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0304115.s004.pdf (1.2MB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Ayataka Fujimoto

7 May 2024

Electroencephalogram Synchronization Measure as a Predictive Biomarker of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Response in Refractory Epilepsy: A Retrospective Study

PONE-D-23-43902R1

Dear Dr. Venethia Danthine,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ayataka Fujimoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have endorsed this version.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the effort you've put into revising the manuscript based on the feedback provided. Please modify the following as needed.

① In line 85 of the Introduction, the phrase “a higher wPLI desynchronization” appears confusing because a higher wPLI indicates more severe synchronization. It might be clearer to express it as “a higher desynchronization”.

② The parenthesis in “a (video-)EEG monitoring” is unnecessary.

③ There are some typos as follows:

・In line 32 of the Abstract, you mentioned “was found” twice in the same sentence (However, in this band, no synchronization difference was found in any state was found between R and NR).

・The parenthesis is not closed in line 272 in the Discussion (Using wPLI as a connectivity metrics (as wPLI is an accepted marker of connectivity (22),…). I think the sentence “as wPLI is an accepted marker of connectivity” is unnecessary because you have already mentioned the usefulness of wPLI in the Introduction. Please close the parenthesis or remove the sentence within the parenthesis.

・” seizure frequency” is better than “seizures frequency” in line 277 of Discussion (Conversely, a higher reduction in seizures frequency with VNS is correlated with reduced alpha band wPLI during sleep before VNS implantation).

Reviewer #2: The authors have replied sufficiently to all my comments. It is a very nice manuscript. Kazuki Sakakura

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kazuki Sakakura

**********

Acceptance letter

Ayataka Fujimoto

2 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-43902R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Danthine,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ayataka Fujimoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Linear mixed models using wPLi as dependent variable in delta band with and without covariables.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304115.s001.docx (17.9KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Linear mixed models using wPLi as dependent variable in alpha band with and without covariables.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304115.s002.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Models of multiple regression analysis using wPLI as a dependent variable in alpha band in sleep.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304115.s003.docx (30.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0304115.s004.pdf (1.2MB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions. Data are available from the Ethics Committee of Catholic University of Louvain – Saint-Luc University Hospital (contact via commission.ethique-saintluc@uclouvain.be) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES