Computer-assisted analysis of routine EEG to identify hidden biomarkers of epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The diagnosis of epilepsy frequently relies on the visual interpretation of the electroencephalogram (EEG) by a neurologist. The hallmark of epilepsy on EEG is the interictal epileptiform discharge (IED). This marker lacks sensitivity: it is only captured in a small percentage of 30-minute routine EEGs in patients with epilepsy. In the past three decades, there has been growing interest in the use of computational methods to analyze the EEG without relying on the detection of IEDs, but none have made it to the clinical practice. We aim to review the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative methods applied to ambulatory EEG analysis to guide the diagnosis and management of epilepsy. Methods The protocol complies with the recommendations for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy by Cochrane. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM reviews, IEEE Explore along with grey literature for articles, conference papers and conference abstracts published after 1961. We will include observational studies that present a computational method to analyze the EEG for the diagnosis of epilepsy in adults or children without relying on the identification of IEDs or seizures. The reference standard is the diagnosis of epilepsy by a physician. We will report the estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity, and receiver operating characteristic area-under-the-curve (ROC AUC) for each marker. If possible, we will perform a meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity and ROC AUC for each individual marker. We will assess the risk of bias using an adapted QUADAS-2 tool. We will also describe the algorithms used for signal processing, feature extraction and predictive modeling, and comment on the reproducibility of the different studies. Discussion Despite the promise to unveil epileptiform patterns that cannot be seen by the naked eye, computational analysis of ambulatory EEG has not yet been successfully translated to the clinical setting. We hope to produce recommendations for future studies on computer-assisted EEG interpretation for the diagnosis and management of epilepsy. Systematic review registration PROSPERO #292261
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 | 0.040 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.007 |
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".