ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2022
Independent evaluation of the harvard automated processing pipeline for Electroencephalography 1.0 using multi-site EEG data from children with Fragile X Syndrome.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliable but Wrong? Automated Detection of Heart Rate Artifacts as a Source of Bias in Pediatric EEG Data.Research square · 2026Article
- Functional connectivity in infants' visual cortex and its links to motion processing and autism.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Considerations and procedures for acquiring EEG as part of multi-site studies for Rett syndrome and other genetic neurodevelopmental disorders.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2025Article
- Minimum data requirements and automated preprocessing for reliable EEG biomarkers in Rett syndrome.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Harvard Automatic Processing Pipeline for Electroencephalography (HAPPE) is a computerized EEG data processing pipeline designed for multiple site analysis of populations with neurodevelopmental disorders. This pipeline has been validated in-house by the developers but external testing using real-world datasets remains to be done. NEW
methodResting and auditory event-related EEG data from 29 children ages 3-6 years with Fragile X Syndrome as well as simulated EEG data was used to evaluate HAPPE's noise reduction techniques, data standardization features, and data integration compared to traditional manualized processing.
resultsFor the real EEG data, HAPPE pipeline showed greater trials retained, greater variance retained through independent component analysis (ICA) component removal, and smaller kurtosis than the manual pipeline; the manual pipeline had a significantly larger signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). For simulated EEG data, correlation between the pure signal and processed data was significantly higher for manually-processed data compared to HAPPE-processed data. Hierarchical linear modeling showed greater signal recovery in the manual pipeline with the exception of the gamma band signal which showed mixed results. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsSNR and simulated signal retention was significantly greater in the manually-processed data than the HAPPE-processed data. Signal reduction may negatively affect outcome measures.
conclusionsThe HAPPE pipeline benefits from less active processing time and artifact reduction without removing segments. However, HAPPE may bias toward elimination of noise at the cost of signal. Recommended implementation of the HAPPE pipeline for neurodevelopmental populations depends on the goals and priorities of the research.
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.