ArticleAnnals of neurology2020
Development and Validation of Forecasting Next Reported Seizure Using e-Diaries.
Article in Annals of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurobehavioral Signatures of Epileptogenesis: Molecular Programs, Trait-like Phenotypes, and Translational Biomarkers Beyond Seizures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.Current opinion in neurology · 2025Article
- AI and Neurology.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- Long-Term Ambulatory Intracranial EEG.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2025Review
- Necessary for seizure forecasting outcome metrics: Seizure frequency and benchmark model.Epilepsy research · 2024Article
- Statistical characteristics of large-scale objective tonic-clonic seizure records from medical smartwatches used in daily life.Epilepsia · 2024Article
- Article
- Necessary for seizure forecasting outcome metrics: seizure frequency and benchmark model.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Prospective validation of a seizure diary forecasting falls short.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Ultradian rhythms in accelerometric and autonomic data vary based on seizure occurrence in paediatric epilepsy patients.Brain communications · 2024Article
- The present and future of seizure detection, prediction, and forecasting with machine learning, including the future impact on clinical trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Applications to Epilepsy: a Review for the Practicing Epileptologist.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Seizure forecasting: Bifurcations in the long and winding road.Epilepsia · 2023Review
- Seizure forecasting: Where do we stand?Epilepsia · 2023Article
- Cyclical underreporting of seizures in patient-based seizure documentation.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023Article
- Perceived seizure risk in epilepsy: Chronic electronic surveys with and without concurrent electroencephalography.Epilepsia · 2023Article
- Can machine learning solve this one? Clinical pitfalls in surgical outcome prediction.Epilepsia · 2023Article
- Systemic inflammation as a biomarker of seizure propensity and a target for treatment to reduce seizure propensity.Epilepsia open · 2023Review
- Sample Size Analysis for Machine Learning Clinical Validation Studies.Biomedicines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere are no validated methods for predicting the timing of seizures. Using machine learning, we sought to forecast 24-hour risk of self-reported seizure from e-diaries.
methodsData from 5,419 patients on SeizureTracker.com (including seizure count, type, and duration) were split into training (3,806 patients/1,665,215 patient-days) and testing (1,613 patients/549,588 patient-days) sets with no overlapping patients. An artificial intelligence (AI) program, consisting of recurrent networks followed by a multilayer perceptron ("deep learning" model), was trained to produce risk forecasts. Forecasts were made from a sliding window of 3-month diary history for each day of each patient's diary. After training, the model parameters were held constant and the testing set was scored. A rate-matched random (RMR) forecast was compared to the AI. Comparisons were made using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a measure of binary discrimination performance, and the Brier score, a measure of forecast calibration. The Brier skill score (BSS) measured the improvement of the AI Brier score compared to the benchmark RMR Brier score. Confidence intervals (CIs) on performance statistics were obtained via bootstrapping.
resultsThe AUC was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.85-0.88) for AI and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.81-0.85) for RMR, favoring AI (p < 0.001). Overall (all patients combined), BSS was 0.27 (95% CI = 0.23-0.31), also favoring AI (p < 0.001).
interpretationThe AI produced a valid forecast superior to a chance forecaster, and provided meaningful forecasts in the majority of patients. Future studies will be needed to quantify the clinical value of these forecasts for patients. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:588-595.
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.