Computer-assisted analysis of routine EEG to identify hidden biomarkers of epilepsy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Computational analysis of routine electroencephalogram (rEEG) could improve the accuracy of epilepsy diagnosis. We aim to systematically assess the diagnostic performances of computed biomarkers for epilepsy in individuals undergoing rEEG. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM reviews, IEEE Explore and the grey literature for studies published between January 1961 and December 2022. We included studies reporting a computational method to diagnose epilepsy based on rEEG without relying on the identification of interictal epileptiform discharges or seizures. Diagnosis of epilepsy as per a treating physician was the reference standard. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted QUADAS-2 tool. Results: We screened 10 166 studies, and 37 were included. The sample size ranged from 8 to 192 (mean=54). The computed biomarkers were based on linear (43%), non-linear (27%), connectivity (38%), and convolutional neural networks (10%) models. The risk of bias was high or unclear in all studies, more commonly from spectrum effect and data leakage. Diagnostic accuracy ranged between 64% and 100%. We observed high methodological heterogeneity, preventing pooling of accuracy measures. Conclusion: The current literature provides insufficient evidence to reliably assess the diagnostic yield of computational analysis of rEEG. Significance: We provide guidelines regarding patient selection, reference standard, algorithms, and performance validation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".