Daniel M Goldenholz

Dr. Daniel M Goldenholz

Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
+1
orcid
Relentless incremental improvement

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 September 2019 in Epilepsia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BABardia Abbasi
Bardia Abbasi
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz

8 May 2008 in Human Brain Mapping
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz
SASeppo Ahlfors
Seppo Ahlfors
MHMatti S. Hämäläinen
Matti S. Hämäläinen
DSDahlia Sharon
Dahlia Sharon
MIMamiko Ishitobi
Mamiko Ishitobi
SSSteven M. Stufflebeam
Steven M. Stufflebeam
Although magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) have been available for decades, their relative merits are still debated. We examined regional differences in signal‐to‐noise‐ratios (SNRs) of cortical sources in MEG and EEG. Data from four subjects were used to simulate focal and extended sources located on the cortical surface reconstructed from high‐resolution magnetic resonance images. The SNR maps for MEG and EEG were found to be complementary. The SNR of deep sources was larger in EEG than in MEG, whereas the opposite was typically the case for superficial sources. Overall, the SNR maps were more uniform for EEG than for MEG. When using a noise model based on uniformly distributed random sources on the cortex, the SNR in MEG was found to be underestimated, compared with the maps obtained with noise estimated from actual recorded MEG and EEG data. With extended sources, the total area of cortex in which the SNR was higher in EEG than in MEG was larger than with focal sources. Clinically, SNR maps in a patient explained differential sensitivity of MEG and EEG in detecting epileptic activity. Our results emphasize the benefits of recording MEG and EEG simultaneously. Hum Brain Mapp 2009.

1 June 2011 in NeuroImage
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LGLouis Gagnon
Louis Gagnon
KPKatherine Perdue
Katherine Perdue
DGDouglas N. Greve
Douglas N. Greve
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz
GKGayatri Kaskhedikar
Gayatri Kaskhedikar
DBDavid A. Boas
David A. Boas

7 July 2015 in Annals of Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz
RMRobert Moss
Robert Moss
JSJonathan Scott
Jonathan Scott
SASungyoung Auh
Sungyoung Auh
WTWilliam H. Theodore
William H. Theodore

23 February 2023 in Biomedicines
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz
HSHaoqi Sun
Haoqi Sun
WGWolfgang Ganglberger
Wolfgang Ganglberger
MWM. Brandon Westover
M. Brandon Westover
Background: Before integrating new machine learning (ML) into clinical practice, algorithms must undergo validation. Validation studies require sample size estimates. Unlike hypothesis testing studies seeking a p-value, the goal of validating predictive models is obtaining estimates of model performance. There is no standard tool for determining sample size estimates for clinical validation studies for machine learning models. Methods: Our open-source method, Sample Size Analysis for Machine Learning (SSAML) was described and was tested in three previously published models: brain age to predict mortality (Cox Proportional Hazard), COVID hospitalization risk prediction (ordinal regression), and seizure risk forecasting (deep learning). Results: Minimum sample sizes were obtained in each dataset using standardized criteria. Discussion: SSAML provides a formal expectation of precision and accuracy at a desired confidence level. SSAML is open-source and agnostic to data type and ML model. It can be used for clinical validation studies of ML models.

2 June 2018 in Epilepsia Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VFVictor Ferastraoaru
Victor Ferastraoaru
Daniel M GoldenholzDaniel M Goldenholz
Daniel M Goldenholz
SCSharon Chiang
Sharon Chiang
RMRobert Moss
Robert Moss
WTWilliam H. Theodore
William H. Theodore
SHSheryl R. Haut
Sheryl R. Haut
Summary: Objective: To analyze data from Seizure Tracker, a large electronic seizure diary, including comparison of seizure characteristics among different etiologies, temporal patterns in seizure fluctuations, and specific triggers.Methods: Zero‐inflated negative binomial mixed‐effects models were used to evaluate temporal patterns of seizure events (during the day or week), as well as group differences in monthly seizure frequency between children and adults and between etiologies. The association of long seizures with seizure triggers was evaluated using a mixed‐effects logistic model with subject as the random effect. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and odds ratios were reported for analyses involving zero‐inflated negative binomial and logistic mixed‐effects models, respectively.Results: A total of 1,037,909 seizures were logged by 10,186 subjects (56.7% children) from December 2007 to January 2016. Children had more frequent seizures than adults did (median monthly seizure frequency 3.5 vs. 2.7, IRR 1.26; p < 0.001). Seizures demonstrated a circadian pattern (higher frequency between 07:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and lower overnight), and seizures were reported differentially across the week (seizure rates higher Monday through Friday than Saturday or Sunday). Longer seizures (>5 or >30 min) had a higher proportion of the following triggers when compared with shorter seizures: “Overtired or irregular sleep,” “Bright or flashing lights,” and “Emotional stress” (p < 0.004).Significance: This study explored a large cohort of patients with self‐reported seizures; strengths and limitations of large seizure diary databases are discussed. The findings in this study are consistent with those of prior work in smaller validated cohorts, suggesting that patient‐recorded databases are a valuable resource for epilepsy research, capable of both replication of results and generation of novel hypotheses.