Deciphering the Morphology of Motor Evoked Potentials.

Abstract

Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) are used to monitor disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). Their morphology plays an important role in this process. Currently, however, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a normal or abnormal morphology. To address this, five experts independently labeled the morphology (normal or abnormal) of the same set of 1,000 MEPs. The intra- and inter-rater agreement between the experts indicates they agree on the concept of morphology, but differ in their choice of threshold between normal and abnormal morphology. We subsequently performed an automated extraction of 5,943 time series features from the MEPs to identify a valid proxy for morphology, based on the provided labels. To do this, we compared the cross-validation performances of one-dimensional logistic regression models fitted to each of the features individually. We find that the approximate entropy (ApEn) feature can accurately reproduce the majority-vote labels. The performance of this feature is evaluated on an independent test set by comparing to the majority vote of the neurologists, obtaining an AUC score of 0.92. The model slightly outperforms the average neurologist at reproducing the neurologists consensus-vote labels. We can conclude that MEP morphology can be consistently defined by pooling the interpretations from multiple neurologists and that ApEn is a valid continuous score for this. Having an objective and reproducible MEP morphological abnormality score will allow researchers to include this feature in their models, without manual annotation becoming a bottleneck. This is crucial for large-scale, multi-center datasets. An exploratory analysis on a large single-center dataset shows that ApEn is potentially clinically useful. Introducing an automated, objective, and reproducible definition of morphology could help overcome some of the barriers that are currently obstructing broad adoption of evoked potentials in daily care and patient follow-up, such as standardization of measurements between different centers, and formulating guidelines for clinical use.