MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318025311 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066932

Computer-assisted analysis of routine electroencephalogram to identify hidden biomarkers of epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4318025311 on OpenAlexafffund
Émile Lemoine, Joel Neves Briard, Bastien Rioux, Renata Podbielski, Bénédicte Nauche, Dènahin Hinnoutondji Toffa, Mark R. Keezer, Frédéric Lesage, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Elie Bou Assi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyProtocol (science)NeurologyMedical physicsData scienceBioinformaticsAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: 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 min routine EEGs in patients with epilepsy. In the past three decades, there has been growing interest in the use of computational methods to analyse 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 AND ANALYSIS: 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 analyse 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 modelling, and comment on the reproducibility of the different studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences related to this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022292261.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.017
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.247
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207