ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2020
Reliability and accuracy of EEG interpretation for estimating age in preterm infants.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assessment of neurodevelopmental maturation: a comprehensive systematic literature review of artificial intelligence-based brain age prediction in pediatric populations.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Pooled it
- Brain activity as a candidate biomarker for personalised caffeine treatment in premature neonates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Machine learning classification of EEG responses to pain-related vs non-pain-related stimulus in preterm infants.Pain reports · 2025Article
- EEG Maturational Age Estimation: A Comparison of Visual and Automated Interpretation of the EEG in Preterm Infants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gestational Duration and Postnatal Age-Related Changes in Aperiodic and Periodic Parameters in Neonatal and Toddler Electroencephalogram (EEG).Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Pharmacological treatment for apnoea of prematurity-the need for an individualised approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Resting state electroencephalographic brain activity in neonates can predict age and is indicative of neurodevelopmental outcome.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- The Use of Midazolam as an Antiseizure Medication in Neonatal Seizures: Single Center Experience and Literature Review.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2024Observational
- Bedside tracking of functional autonomic age in preterm infants.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- A practical approach toward interpretation of amplitude integrated electroencephalography in preterm infants.European journal of pediatrics · 2022Review
- Building an Open Source Classifier for the Neonatal EEG Background: A Systematic Feature-Based Approach From Expert Scoring to Clinical Visualization.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the accuracy of, and agreement among, EEG and aEEG readers' estimation of maturity and a novel computational measure of functional brain age (FBA) in preterm infants.
methodsSeven experts estimated the postmenstrual ages (PMA) in a cohort of recordings from preterm infants using cloud-based review software. The FBA was calculated using a machine learning-based algorithm. Error analysis was used to determine the accuracy of PMA assessments and intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to assess agreement between experts.
resultsEEG recordings from a PMA range 25 to 38 weeks were successfully interpreted. In 179 recordings from 62 infants interpreted by all human readers, there was moderate agreement between experts (aEEG ICC = 0.724; 95%CI:0.658-0.781 and EEG ICC = 0.517; 95%CI:0.311-0.664). In 149 recordings from 61 infants interpreted by all human readers and the FBA algorithm, random and systematic errors in visual interpretation of PMA were significantly higher than the computational FBA estimate. Tracking of maturation in individual infants showed stable FBA trajectories, but the trajectories of the experts' PMA estimate were more likely to be obscured by random errors. The accuracy of visual interpretation of PMA estimation was compromised by neurodevelopmental outcome for both aEEG and EEG review.
interpretationVisual assessment of infant maturity is possible from the EEG or aEEG, with an average of human experts providing the highest accuracy. Tracking PMA of individual infants was hampered by errors in experts' estimates. FBA provided the most accurate maturity assessment and has potential as a biomarker of early outcome.
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.