Machine-learning for the prediction of one-year seizure recurrence based on routine electroencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting seizure recurrence risk is critical to the diagnosis and management of epilepsy. Routine electroencephalography (EEG) is a cornerstone of the estimation of seizure recurrence risk. However, EEG interpretation relies on the visual identification of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) by neurologists, with limited sensitivity. Automated processing of EEG could increase its diagnostic yield and accessibility. The main objective was to develop a prediction model based on automated EEG processing to predict one-year seizure recurrence in patients undergoing routine EEG. We retrospectively selected a consecutive cohort of 517 patients undergoing routine EEG at our institution (training set) and a separate, temporally shifted cohort of 261 patients (testing set). We developed an automated processing pipeline to extract linear and non-linear features from the EEGs. We trained machine learning algorithms on multichannel EEG segments to predict one-year seizure recurrence. We evaluated the impact of IEDs and clinical confounders on performances and validated the performances on the testing set. The receiver operating characteristic area-under-the-curve for seizure recurrence after EEG in the testing set was 0.63 (95% CI 0.55-0.71). Predictions were still significantly above chance in EEGs with no IEDs. Our findings suggest that there are changes other than IEDs in the EEG signal embodying seizure propensity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".