Criteria for defining interictal epileptiform discharges in EEG: a clinical validation study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To define and validate criteria for accurate identification of EEG interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) using: (a) the six sensor space criteria proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN), and, (b) a novel source space method. Criteria yielding high specificity are needed because EEG “over-reading” is a common cause of epilepsy misdiagnosis. Methods: Seven raters reviewed EEG segments containing sharp waveforms from 100 patients with and without epilepsy. Clinical diagnosis gold standard was video-EEG recording of habitual paroxysmal events. Raters reviewed in three separate rounds, in randomized order: 1) in sensor space, presence/absence of each IFCN criterion was scored; 2) in source space, sharp transients were classified as epileptiform or non-epileptiform; 3) in sensor space, sharp transients were classified unrestricted by any criteria (expert scoring). Results: Cut-off values of 4 and 5 criteria in sensor space, and analysis in source space, provided high accuracy (91%, 88% and 90%, respectively), similar to expert scoring (92%). Two methods had specificity exceeding the desired threshold of 95%: using 5 IFCN criteria as cut-off, and analysis in source space (both 95.65%); sensitivity of these methods was 81.48% and 85.19%. Conclusions: Presence of 5 IFCN criteria in sensor space and analysis in source space are optimal for clinical implementation. By extracting these objective features, diagnostic accuracy similar to expert scorings is achieved. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that IFCN criteria in sensor space and analysis in source space have high specificity (>95%) and sensitivity (81-85%) for identification of IEDs.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.013 |
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 it