MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405932824 · doi:10.2196/59558

Requirement Analysis for Data-Driven Electroencephalography Seizure Monitoring Software to Enhance Quality and Decision Making in Digital Care Pathways for Epilepsy: A Feasibility Study from the Perspectives of Health Care Professionals

2024· article· en· W4405932824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pantea Keikhosrokiani, Johanna Annunen, Jonna Komulainen‐Ebrahim, Jukka Kortelainen, Mika Kallio, Päivi Vieira, Minna Isomursu, Johanna Uusimaa

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintEpilepsyHealth careElectroencephalographySoftwareHealth professionalsComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyMedical emergencyInternet privacyWorld Wide WebPsychiatryOperating systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Abnormal brain activity is the source of epileptic seizures, which can present a variety of symptoms and influence patients' quality of life. Therefore, it is critical to track epileptic seizures, diagnose them, and provide potential therapies to manage people with epilepsy. Electroencephalography (EEG) is helpful in the diagnosis and classification of the seizure type, epilepsy, or epilepsy syndrome. Ictal EEG is rarely recorded, whereas interictal EEG is more often recorded, and the results can be abnormal or normal even in the case of epilepsy. The current digital care pathway for epilepsy (DCPE) lacks the integration of data-driven seizure detection, which could potentially enhance epilepsy treatment and management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the requirements for integrating data-driven medical software into the DCPE to meet the project's goals and demonstrate practical feasibility regarding resource availability, time constraints, and technological capabilities. This adjustment emphasized ensuring that the proposed system is realistic and achievable. Perspectives on the feasibility of data-driven medical software that meets the project's goals and demonstrates practical feasibility regarding resource availability, time constraints, and technological capabilities are presented. METHODS: A 4-round Delphi study using focus group discussions was conducted with 7 diverse panels of experts from Oulu University Hospital to address the research questions and evaluate the feasibility of data-driven medical software for monitoring individuals with epilepsy. This collaborative approach fostered a thorough understanding of the topic and considered the perspectives of various stakeholders. In addition, a qualitative study was carried out using semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Drawing from the findings of the thematic analytics, a detailed set of guidelines was created to facilitate the seamless integration of the proposed data-driven medical software for EEG seizure monitoring into the DCPE. These guidelines encompass system requirements, data collection and analysis, and user training, offering a comprehensive road map for the effective implementation of the software. CONCLUSIONS: The study outcome presents a comprehensive strategy for improving the quality of care, providing personalized solutions, managing health care resources, and using artificial intelligence and sensor technology in clinical settings. The potential of artificial intelligence and sensor technology to revolutionize health care is exciting. The study identified practical strategies, such as real-time EEG seizure monitoring, predictive modeling for seizure occurrence, and data-driven analytics integration to enhance decision-making. These strategies were aimed at reducing diagnostic delays and providing personalized care. We are actively working on integrating these features into clinical workflows. However, further case studies and pilot implementations are planned for future studies. The results of this study will guide system developers in the meticulous design and development of systems that meet user needs in the DCPE.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207