ArticlePloS one2014
Computer-assisted interpretation of the EEG background pattern: a clinical evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unveiling variability: A systematic review of reproducibility in visual EEG analysis, with focus on seizures.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Scorepochs: A Computer-Aided Scoring Tool for Resting-State M/EEG Epochs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predicting sex from brain rhythms with deep learning.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Visual EEG reviewing times with SCORE EEG.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInterpretation of the EEG background pattern in routine recordings is an important part of clinical reviews. We evaluated the feasibility of an automated analysis system to assist reviewers with evaluation of the general properties in the EEG background pattern.
methodsQuantitative eeg methods were used to describe the following five background properties: posterior dominant rhythm frequency and reactivity, anterior-posterior gradients, presence of diffuse slow-wave activity and asymmetry. Software running the quantitative methods were given to ten experienced electroencephalographers together with 45 routine EEG recordings and computer-generated reports. Participants were asked to review the EEGs by visual analysis first, and afterwards to compare their findings with the generated reports and correct mistakes made by the system. Corrected reports were returned for comparison.
resultsUsing a gold-standard derived from the consensus of reviewers, inter-rater agreement was calculated for all reviewers and for automated interpretation. Automated interpretation together with most participants showed high (kappa > 0.6) agreement with the gold standard. In some cases, automated analysis showed higher agreement with the gold standard than participants. When asked in a questionnaire after the study, all participants considered computer-assisted interpretation to be useful for every day use in routine reviews.
conclusionsAutomated interpretation methods proved to be accurate and were considered to be useful by all participants. SIGNIFICANCE: Computer-assisted interpretation of the EEG background pattern can bring consistency to reviewing and improve efficiency and inter-rater agreement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.