Paroxysmal slow wave events predict epilepsy following a first seizure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Management of a patient presenting with a first seizure depends on the risk of additional seizures. In clinical practice, the recurrence risk is estimated by the treating physician using the neurological examination, brain imaging, a thorough history for risk factors, and routine scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) to detect abnormal epileptiform activity. The decision to use antiseizure medication can be challenging when objective findings are missing. There is a need for new biomarkers to better diagnose epilepsy following a first seizure. Recently, an EEG-based novel analytical method was reported to detect paroxysmal slowing in the cortical network of patients with epilepsy. The aim of our study is to test this method's sensitivity and specificity to predict epilepsy following a first seizure. METHODS: We analyzed interictal EEGs of 70 patients admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary referral center after a first seizure. Clinical data from a follow-up period of at least 18 months were available. EEGs of 30 healthy controls were also analyzed and included. For each EEG, we applied an automated algorithm to detect paroxysmal slow wave events (PSWEs). RESULTS: Of patients presenting with a first seizure, 40% had at least one additional recurring seizure and were diagnosed with epilepsy. Sixty percent did not report additional seizures. A significantly higher occurrence of PSWEs was detected in the first interictal EEG test of those patients who were eventually diagnosed with epilepsy. Conducting the EEG test within 72 h after the first seizure significantly increased the likelihood of detecting PSWEs and the predictive value for epilepsy up to 82%. SIGNIFICANCE: The quantification of PSWEs by an automated algorithm can predict epilepsy and help the neurologist in evaluating a patient with a first seizure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".