Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34806993›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Detecting Tonic-Clonic Seizures in Multimodal Biosignal Data From Wearables: Methodology Design and Validation.

Sebastian Böttcher, Elisa Bruno, Nikolay V Manyakov, Nino Epitashvili, Kasper Claes, Martin Glasstetter, Sarah Thorpe, Simon Lees, Matthias Dümpelmann, Kristof Van Laerhoven and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Wearable Artificial Intelligence for Epilepsy: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Seizure Detection Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Sebastian BöttcherEpilepsy Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3407-8290
Elisa BrunoDivision of Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8166-1190
Nikolay V ManyakovData Science Analytics & Insights, Janssen Research & Development, Beerse, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9037-1400
Nino EpitashviliEpilepsy Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-8286
Kasper ClaesUCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1674-9940
Martin GlasstetterEpilepsy Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4929-4332
Sarah ThorpeThe RADAR-CNS Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8973-3777
Simon LeesThe RADAR-CNS Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5140-7394
Matthias DümpelmannEpilepsy Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1476-7777
Kristof Van LaerhovenUbiquitous Computing, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5296-5347
Mark P RichardsonDivision of Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8925-3140
Andreas Schulze-BonhageEpilepsy Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2382-0506
RADAR-CNS Consortium *see Acknowledgements, London, United Kingdom.
University of Freiburg · DEKing's College London · GBJanssen (Belgium) · BE

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVideo electroencephalography recordings, routinely used in epilepsy monitoring units, are the gold standard for monitoring epileptic seizures. However, monitoring is also needed in the day-to-day lives of people with epilepsy, where video electroencephalography is not feasible. Wearables could fill this gap by providing patients with an accurate log of their seizures.

objectiveAlthough there are already systems available that provide promising results for the detection of tonic-clonic seizures (TCSs), research in this area is often limited to detection from 1 biosignal modality or only during the night when the patient is in bed. The aim of this study is to provide evidence that supervised machine learning can detect TCSs from multimodal data in a new data set during daytime and nighttime.

methodsAn extensive data set of biosignals from a multimodal watch worn by people with epilepsy was recorded during their stay in the epilepsy monitoring unit at 2 European clinical sites. From a larger data set of 243 enrolled participants, those who had data recorded during TCSs were selected, amounting to 10 participants with 21 TCSs. Accelerometry and electrodermal activity recorded by the wearable device were used for analysis, and seizure manifestation was annotated in detail by clinical experts. Ten accelerometry and 3 electrodermal activity features were calculated for sliding windows of variable size across the data. A gradient tree boosting algorithm was used for seizure detection, and the optimal parameter combination was determined in a leave-one-participant-out cross-validation on a training set of 10 seizures from 8 participants. The model was then evaluated on an out-of-sample test set of 11 seizures from the remaining 2 participants. To assess specificity, we additionally analyzed data from up to 29 participants without TCSs during the model evaluation.

resultsIn the leave-one-participant-out cross-validation, the model optimized for sensitivity could detect all 10 seizures with a false alarm rate of 0.46 per day in 17.3 days of data. In a test set of 11 out-of-sample TCSs, amounting to 8.3 days of data, the model could detect 10 seizures and produced no false positives. Increasing the test set to include data from 28 more participants without additional TCSs resulted in a false alarm rate of 0.19 per day in 78 days of wearable data.

conclusionsWe show that a gradient tree boosting machine can robustly detect TCSs from multimodal wearable data in an original data set and that even with very limited training data, supervised machine learning can achieve a high sensitivity and low false-positive rate. This methodology may offer a promising way to approach wearable-based nonconvulsive seizure detection.

Indexed as

SeizuresWearable Electronic DevicesAccelerometryAlgorithmsElectroencephalographyHumansdigital healtheHealthepilepsymHealthmobile healthmultimodal dataseizure detectionwearables

Identifiers

PMID34806993
PMCPMC8663471
OpenAlexW3196916920

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.