MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405805941 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000210234

Accuracy of a Rapid-Response EEG's Automated Seizure-Burden Estimator

2024· article· en· W4405805941 on OpenAlexaff
Zubeda Sheikh, Monica B. Dhakar, Michael Fong, Wei Fang, Neishay Ayub, Janine Molino, Hiba A. Haider, Brandon Foreman, Emily J. Gilmore, Moshe Mizrahi, Ioannis Karakis, Sarah E. Schmitt, Gamaleldin Osman, Ji Yeoun Yoo, Lawrence J. Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsXenon Pharmaceuticals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyEstimatorEpilepsyMedicineAudiologyComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)NeuroscienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of rapid response EEG (rr-EEG) has recently expanded in limited-resource settings and as a supplement to conventional EEG to rapidly detect and treat nonconvulsive status epilepticus. The study objective was to test the accuracy of an rr-EEG's automated seizure burden estimator (ASBE). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using multiple blinded reviewers. All consecutive clinical rr-EEG procedures performed between November 2019 and February 2021 at Yale New Haven Hospital, one affiliated community hospital, and one affiliated inner-city regional hospital were included. Three reviewers blindly reviewed each EEG. The reference standard was 2/3 agreement. The co-primary outcome measures were the negative predictive value (NPV) of the ASBE for the detection of electrographic status epilepticus (ESE) or possible ESE (ESE/pESE) (to be used as a screening method to exclude ESE without the need for urgent expert review) and the positive predictive value (PPV, to be used for immediate treatment without requiring urgent expert review). These were assessed using a variety of seizure burden cutoffs determined by the algorithm (>1%, >10%, >20%, >50%, and >90%). RESULTS: In the first 2 hours, a >10% burden cutoff detected 86% (95% CI 42%-100%) of studies with ESE alone and 88% (68%-97%) with ESE/pESE; this >10% cutoff had a NPV of 99% (97%-100%) for ESE and 98% (95%-100%) for ESE/pESE. The specificity at this threshold was 79% (73%-84%) for ESE and 84% (79%-89%) for ESE/pESE, but the PPV was low at 11% (4%-23%) for ESE and 39% (26%-53%) for ESE/pESE. A >90% burden cutoff was 97% (94%-99%) specific for detecting ESE (PPV 33% [7%-70%]) and 99% (97%-100%) specific for detecting ESE/pESE [PPV 78% (40%-97%)], although the sensitivity dropped significantly to 29% (13%-51%) for ESE/pESE and 43% (10%-82%) for ESE at the >90% threshold. DISCUSSION: The ASBE has high specificity at >90% seizure burden threshold for detecting ESE and ESE/pESE, with good PPV for ESE/pESE, though with only low-to-moderate sensitivity; at this threshold, it can be used to help triage patients for immediate treatment/transfer, urgent expert review, and additional CEEG. A >10% threshold has a high sensitivity, detecting approximately 85% of patients with ESE; at this lower cutoff, it can be used as a screening tool to exclude ESE with >95% NPV. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that ASBE software can reliably exclude ESE (98% negative predictive value using a <10% burden cutoff) without expert review in most patients requiring rapid response EEG.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→