The Diagnostic Accuracy of Prolonged Ambulatory Versus Routine EEG
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged ambulatory electroencephalography (paEEG) is increasingly used in clinical practice but its diagnostic accuracy relative to that of routine EEG (rEEG) remains uncertain. We examined a consecutive sample of 72 individuals who had undergone 32-channel paEEG immediately after an rEEG, creating perfectly matched EEG samples. Each recording was prospectively assessed for epileptiform discharges (ED) and nonepileptiform abnormalities. The median paEEG duration was 22.5 hours (interquartile range: 22.0-23.0). The sensitivity of paEEG was 2.23 times greater than that of rEEG [sensitivity ratio: 2.23 (95% CI=1.49-3.34)] if a positive test was limited to the presence of epileptiform discharges. This benefit of paEEG versus rEEG was no longer evident if the definition of a positive test included nonepileptiform abnormalities (sensitivity ratio 1.26; 95% CI=1.02-1.55). The specificity of the 2 tests was not evidently different (specificity ratio 0.67; 95% CI=0.17-2.67). Twenty-six percent of paEEG recorded epileptic seizures while none of the rEEG did (absolute difference 26.0% (95% CI=11.8-40.2). Our findings quantify the benefit of 32-channel paEEG, relative to rEEG, and support its role in the diagnosis and characterization of epilepsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it