Sensitivity of quantitative EEG for seizure identification in the intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of quantitative EEG (QEEG) for electrographic seizure identification in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Six-hour EEG epochs chosen from 15 patients underwent transformation into QEEG displays. Each epoch was reviewed in 3 formats: raw EEG, QEEG + raw, and QEEG-only. Epochs were also analyzed by a proprietary seizure detection algorithm. Nine neurophysiologists reviewed raw EEGs to identify seizures to serve as the gold standard. Nine other neurophysiologists with experience in QEEG evaluated the epochs in QEEG formats, with and without concomitant raw EEG. Sensitivity and false-positive rates (FPRs) for seizure identification were calculated and median review time assessed. RESULTS: Mean sensitivity for seizure identification ranged from 51% to 67% for QEEG-only and 63%-68% for QEEG + raw. FPRs averaged 1/h for QEEG-only and 0.5/h for QEEG + raw. Mean sensitivity of seizure probability software was 26.2%-26.7%, with FPR of 0.07/h. Epochs with the highest sensitivities contained frequent, intermittent seizures. Lower sensitivities were seen with slow-frequency, low-amplitude seizures and epochs with rhythmic or periodic patterns. Median review times were shorter for QEEG (6 minutes) and QEEG + raw analysis (14.5 minutes) vs raw EEG (19 minutes; p = 0.00003). CONCLUSIONS: A panel of QEEG trends can be used by experts to shorten EEG review time for seizure identification with reasonable sensitivity and low FPRs. The prevalence of false detections confirms that raw EEG review must be used in conjunction with QEEG. Studies are needed to identify optimal QEEG trend configurations and the utility of QEEG as a screening tool for non-EEG personnel. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE REVIEW: This study provides Class II evidence that QEEG + raw interpreted by experts identifies seizures in patients in the ICU with a sensitivity of 63%-68% and FPR of 0.5 seizures per hour.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".