ArticleJAMA neurology2020
Interrater Reliability of Experts in Identifying Interictal Epileptiform Discharges in Electroencephalograms.
Article in JAMA neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 63 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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A randomized controlled educational pilot trial of interictal epileptiform discharge identification for neurology residents.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2024Trial
- Prevention of Epilepsy in Infants with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex in the EPISTOP Trial.Annals of neurology · 2021Trial
- Effect of Anti-Seizure Medications on Interictal Epileptiform Discharges in Focal Epilepsy.Clinical EEG and neuroscience · 2026Article
- Beyond pattern recognition: Why electroencephalography must answer clinical questions, not describe brain waves.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- EEG Quantification: A New Dawn for an Old Tool.Revista de neurologia · 2026Article
- Discovering Novel intracranial EEG Biomarkers of Seizure Generating Tissue through Time-Frequency Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Thalamic interictal epileptic and non-epileptic events during NREM sleep in patients with focal epilepsy: a Stereo-EEG study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Laminar organization of cellular microcircuits modulating human interictal epileptiform discharges.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- Automated interictal epileptic spike detection from simple and noisy annotations in MEG data.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a deep survival model to predict time to seizure from routine electroencephalography.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Article
- An Evolving Understanding of Interictal Epileptiform Discharges.Epilepsy currents · 2026Review
- Bayesian Uncertainty-aware Deep Learning with noisy labels: Tackling annotation ambiguity in EEG seizure detection.PloS one · 2026Article
- Vagus nerve stimulation: anti-inflammatory effects in epilepsy.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Assessing the performance of artificial intelligence in detecting electrographic status epilepticus when human experts often disagree.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Seminar in Epileptology: Normal awake and sleep patterns, interictal abnormalities, and ictal patterns on scalp EEG.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2025Review
- Harvard Electroencephalography Database: A comprehensive clinical electroencephalographic resource from four Boston hospitals.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Article
- Reply to: Optimizing external validation of deep neural networks for interictal discharge detection.Epilepsia · 2025Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The validity of using electroencephalograms (EEGs) to diagnose epilepsy requires reliable detection of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs). Prior interrater reliability (IRR) studies are limited by small samples and selection bias. Objective: To assess the reliability of experts in detecting IEDs in routine EEGs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective analysis conducted in 2 phases included as participants physicians with at least 1 year of subspecialty training in clinical neurophysiology. In phase 1, 9 experts independently identified candidate IEDs in 991 EEGs (1 expert per EEG) reported in the medical record to contain at least 1 IED, yielding 87 636 candidate IEDs. In phase 2, the candidate IEDs were clustered into groups with distinct morphological features, yielding 12 602 clusters, and a representative candidate IED was selected from each cluster. We added 660 waveforms (11 random samples each from 60 randomly selected EEGs reported as being free of IEDs) as negative controls. Eight experts independently scored all 13 262 candidates as IEDs or non-IEDs. The 1051 EEGs in the study were recorded at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2012 and 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures were percentage of agreement (PA) and beyond-chance agreement (Gwet κ) for individual IEDs (IED-wise IRR) and for whether an EEG contained any IEDs (EEG-wise IRR). Secondary outcomes were the correlations between numbers of IEDs marked by experts across cases, calibration of expert scoring to group consensus, and receiver operating characteristic analysis of how well multivariate logistic regression models may account for differences in the IED scoring behavior between experts. Results: Among the 1051 EEGs assessed in the study, 540 (51.4%) were those of females and 511 (48.6%) were those of males. In phase 1, 9 experts each marked potential IEDs in a median of 65 (interquartile range [IQR], 28-332) EEGs. The total number of IED candidates marked was 87 636. Expert IRR for the 13 262 individually annotated IED candidates was fair, with the mean PA being 72.4% (95% CI, 67.0%-77.8%) and mean κ being 48.7% (95% CI, 37.3%-60.1%). The EEG-wise IRR was substantial, with the mean PA being 80.9% (95% CI, 76.2%-85.7%) and mean κ being 69.4% (95% CI, 60.3%-78.5%). A statistical model based on waveform morphological features, when provided with individualized thresholds, explained the median binary scores of all experts with a high degree of accuracy of 80% (range, 73%-88%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that experts can identify whether EEGs contain IEDs with substantial reliability. Lower reliability regarding individual IEDs may be largely explained by various experts applying different thresholds to a common underlying statistical model.
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.