MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413572014 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaf319

Improving diagnostic accuracy of routine EEG for epilepsy using deep learning

2025· article· en· W4413572014 on OpenAlexafffund
Émile Lemoine, Dènahin Hinnoutondji Toffa, An Qi Xu, Jean-Daniel Tessier, Mezen Jemel, Frédéric Lesage, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Elie Bou Assi

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEisaiUnion Chimique BelgeUniversidade Católica de BrasíliaCanada Research ChairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEisai CanadaInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsEpilepsyElectroencephalographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningAudiologyMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207