Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30618700›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2018

Epileptic Seizure Detection Based on EEG Signals and CNN.

Mengni Zhou, Cheng Tian, Rui Cao, Bin Wang, Yan Niu, Ting Hu, Hao Guo, Jie Xiang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed
19.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed, 477 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. GEM-CRAP: a fusion architecture for focal seizure detection.Journal of translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mengni ZhouCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Cheng TianCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Rui CaoSoftware College, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Bin WangCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Yan NiuCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Ting HuCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Hao GuoCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Jie XiangCollege of Information and Computer Science, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China.
Taiyuan University of Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects approximately fifty million people according to the World Health Organization. While electroencephalography (EEG) plays important roles in monitoring the brain activity of patients with epilepsy and diagnosing epilepsy, an expert is needed to analyze all EEG recordings to detect epileptic activity. This method is obviously time-consuming and tedious, and a timely and accurate diagnosis of epilepsy is essential to initiate antiepileptic drug therapy and subsequently reduce the risk of future seizures and seizure-related complications. In this study, a convolutional neural network (CNN) based on raw EEG signals instead of manual feature extraction was used to distinguish ictal, preictal, and interictal segments for epileptic seizure detection. We compared the performances of time and frequency domain signals in the detection of epileptic signals based on the intracranial Freiburg and scalp CHB-MIT databases to explore the potential of these parameters. Three types of experiments involving two binary classification problems (interictal vs. preictal and interictal vs. ictal) and one three-class problem (interictal vs. preictal vs. ictal) were conducted to explore the feasibility of this method. Using frequency domain signals in the Freiburg database, average accuracies of 96.7, 95.4, and 92.3% were obtained for the three experiments, while the average accuracies for detection in the CHB-MIT database were 95.6, 97.5, and 93% in the three experiments. Using time domain signals in the Freiburg database, the average accuracies were 91.1, 83.8, and 85.1% in the three experiments, while the signal detection accuracies in the CHB-MIT database were only 59.5, 62.3, and 47.9% in the three experiments. Based on these results, the three cases are effectively detected using frequency domain signals. However, the effective identification of the three cases using time domain signals as input samples is achieved for only some patients. Overall, the classification accuracies of frequency domain signals are significantly increased compared to time domain signals. In addition, frequency domain signals have greater potential than time domain signals for CNN applications.

Indexed as

convolutional neural networkselectroencephalogramepilepsyfrequency domain signalstime domain signals

Identifiers

PMID30618700
PMCPMC6295451
OpenAlexW2904559787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.