ArticleFrontiers in neurology2021
A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: About 30% of epilepsy patients are resistant to treatment with antiepileptic drugs, and only a minority of these are surgical candidates. A recent therapeutic approach is the application of electrical stimulation in the early phases of a seizure to interrupt its spread across the brain. To accomplish this, energy-efficient seizure detectors are required that are able to detect a seizure in its early stages. Methods: Three patient-specific, energy-efficient seizure detectors are proposed in this study: (i) random forest (RF); (ii) long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN); and (iii) convolutional neural network (CNN). Performance evaluation was based on EEG data ( Results: The RNN seizure detector achieved a slightly better level of performance, with a median area under the precision-recall curve score of 0.49, compared to 0.47 for CNN and 0.46 for RF. In terms of energy consumption, RF was the most efficient algorithm, with a total of 67k AOs and 67k MAs per classification. This was followed by CNN (488k AOs and 963k MAs) and RNN (772k AOs and 978k MAs), whereby MAs contributed more to total energy consumption. Measurements derived from the hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm demonstrated a significant correlation between estimations and actual measurements. Discussion: All three proposed seizure detection algorithms were shown to be suitable for application in implantable devices. The applied methodology for a platform-independent energy estimation was proven to be accurate by way of hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm. These findings show that seizure detection can be achieved using just a few channels with limited spatial distribution. The methodology proposed in this study can therefore be applied when designing new models for responsive neurostimulation.
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.