Trial reportSeizure2021
Can machine learning improve randomized clinical trial analysis?
Trial report in Seizure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Epilepsy and Placebo: A Literature Review.Neurologic clinics · 2026Review
- Minimum clinical utility standards for wearable seizure detectors: A simulation study.Epilepsia · 2024Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Applications to Epilepsy: a Review for the Practicing Epileptologist.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Machine Learning in Clinical Trials: A Primer with Applications to Neurology.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023Review
- Flexible realistic simulation of seizure occurrence recapitulating statistical properties of seizure diaries.Epilepsia · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecently a realistic simulator of patient seizure diaries was developed that can reproduce effects seen in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs suffer from high costs and statistical inefficiencies. Using realistic simulation and machine learning this study aimed to identify a more statistically efficient outcome metric.
methodsFive candidate deep learning architectures with 54 permutations of hyperparameters were compared to the traditional standard, median percent change (MPC). Each were also tested for type 1 error. All models had similar outcomes, with appropriate low levels of type 1 error.
resultsThe simplest model was equivalent to a logistic regression of a histogram of individual percentage changes in seizure rate, requiring 21-22% less patients to discriminate drug from placebo at 90% power. This model was referred to as LPC.
conclusionFuture studies to validate LPC may enable faster, cheaper and more efficient clinical trials.
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.