Criteria for defining interictal epileptiform discharges in EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define and validate criteria for accurate identification of EEG interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) using (1) the 6 sensor space criteria proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) and (2) a novel source space method. Criteria yielding high specificity are needed because EEG over-reading is a common cause of epilepsy misdiagnosis. METHODS: Seven raters reviewed EEG sharp transients from 100 patients with and without epilepsy (diagnosed definitively by video-EEG recording of habitual events). Raters reviewed the transients, randomized, and classified them as epileptiform or nonepileptiform in 3 separate rounds: in 2, EEG was reviewed in sensor space (scoring the presence/absence of each IFCN criterion for each transient or classifying unrestricted by criteria [expert scoring]); in the other, review and classification were performed in source space. RESULTS: Cutoff values of 4 and 5 criteria in sensor space and analysis in source space provided high accuracy (91%, 88%, and 90%, respectively), similar to expert scoring (92%). Two methods had specificity exceeding the desired threshold of 95%: using 5 IFCN criteria as cutoff and analysis in source space (both 95.65%); the sensitivity of these methods was 81.48% and 85.19%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of 5 IFCN criteria in sensor space and analysis in source space are optimal for clinical implementation. By extracting these objective features, diagnostic accuracy similar to expert scorings is achieved. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that IFCN criteria in sensor space and analysis in source space have high specificity (>95%) and sensitivity (81%-85%) for identification of IEDs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".