Improving diagnostic accuracy of routine EEG for epilepsy using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The yield of routine EEG to diagnose epilepsy is limited by low sensitivity and the potential for misinterpretation of interictal epileptiform discharges. Our objective is to develop, train and validate a deep learning model that can identify epilepsy from routine EEG recordings, complementing traditional interpretation based on identifying interictal discharges. This is a retrospective cohort study of diagnostic accuracy. All consecutive patients undergoing routine EEG at our tertiary care centre between January 2018 and September 2019 were included. EEGs recorded between July 2019 and September 2019 constituted a temporally shifted testing cohort. The diagnosis of epilepsy was established by the treating neurologist at the end of the available follow-up period, based on clinical file review. Original EEG reports were reviewed for IEDs. We developed seven novel deep learning models based on Vision Transformers and Convolutional Neural Networks, training them to classify raw EEG recordings. We compared their performance to interictal discharge-based interpretation and two previously proposed machine learning methods. The study included 948 EEGs from 846 patients (820 EEGs/728 patients in training/validation, 128 EEGs/118 patients in testing). Median follow-up was 2.2 years and 1.7 years in each cohort, respectively. Our flagship Vision Transformer model, DeepEpilepsy, achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.83), outperforming interictal discharge-based interpretation (0.69; 0.64-0.73) and previous methods. Combining DeepEpilepsy with interictal discharges increased the performance to 0.83 (0.77-0.89). DeepEpilepsy can identify epilepsy on routine EEG independently of interictal discharges, suggesting that deep learning can detect novel EEG patterns relevant to epilepsy diagnosis. Further research is needed to understand the exact nature of these patterns and evaluate the clinical impact of this increased diagnostic yield in specific settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".