ArticleClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2017
A novel scheme for the validation of an automated classification method for epileptic spikes by comparison with multiple observers.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An Algorithm (LaD) for Monitoring Childbirth in Settings Where Tracking All Parameters in the World Health Organization Partograph Is Not Feasible: Design and Expert Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- BOLD mapping of human epileptic spikes recorded during simultaneous intracranial EEG-fMRI: The impact of automated spike classification.NeuroImage · 2019Article
- Developing and Testing Electronic Health Record-Derived Caries Indices.Caries research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the application of an automated neuronal spike classification algorithm, Wave_clus (WC), on interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) obtained from human intracranial EEG (icEEG) data.
methodFive 10-min segments of icEEG recorded in 5 patients were used. WC and three expert EEG reviewers independently classified one hundred IED events into IED classes or non-IEDs. First, we determined whether WC-human agreement variability falls within inter-reviewer agreement variability by calculating the variation of information for each classifier pair and quantifying the overlap between all WC-reviewer and all reviewer-reviewer pairs. Second, we compared WC and EEG reviewers' spike identification and individual spike class labels visually and quantitatively.
resultsThe overlap between all WC-human pairs and all human pairs was >80% for 3/5 patients and >58% for the other 2 patients demonstrating WC falling within inter-human variation. The average sensitivity of spike marking for WC was 91% and >87% for all three EEG reviewers. Finally, there was a strong visual and quantitative similarity between WC and EEG reviewers.
conclusionsWC performance is indistinguishable to that of EEG reviewers' suggesting it could be a valid clinical tool for the assessment of IEDs. SIGNIFICANCE: WC can be used to provide quantitative analysis of epileptic spikes.
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.