Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36036923›Full record

ArticleJAMA neurology2022

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Predicting Treatment Response in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy.

Haris Hakeem, Wei Feng, Zhibin Chen, Jiun Choong, Martin J Brodie, Si-Lei Fong, Kheng-Seang Lim, Junhong Wu, Xuefeng Wang, Nicholas Lawn and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Machine-learning methods for epilepsy diagnosis and therapeutic prevention: advances, setbacks, and opportunities.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Haris HakeemDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Wei FengDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Zhibin ChenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jiun ChoongDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Martin J BrodieDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Si-Lei FongNeurology Division, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kheng-Seang LimNeurology Division, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Junhong WuDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Neurology, Chongqing, China.
Xuefeng WangDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Neurology, Chongqing, China.
Nicholas LawnWA Adult Epilepsy Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Guanzhong NiDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiang GaoDepartment of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Mijuan LuoDepartment of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ziyi ChenDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zongyuan GeDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick KwanDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Selection of antiseizure medications (ASMs) for epilepsy remains largely a trial-and-error approach. Under this approach, many patients have to endure sequential trials of ineffective treatments until the "right drugs" are prescribed. Objective: To develop and validate a deep learning model using readily available clinical information to predict treatment success with the first ASM for individual patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study developed and validated a prognostic model. Patients were treated between 1982 and 2020. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year or until failure of the first ASM. A total of 2404 adults with epilepsy newly treated at specialist clinics in Scotland, Malaysia, Australia, and China between 1982 and 2020 were considered for inclusion, of whom 606 (25.2%) were excluded from the final cohort because of missing information in 1 or more variables. Exposures: One of 7 antiseizure medications. Main Outcomes and Measures: With the use of the transformer model architecture on 16 clinical factors and ASM information, this cohort study first pooled all cohorts for model training and testing. The model was trained again using the largest cohort and externally validated on the other 4 cohorts. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), weighted balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the model were all assessed for predicting treatment success based on the optimal probability cutoff. Treatment success was defined as complete seizure freedom for the first year of treatment while taking the first ASM. Performance of the transformer model was compared with other machine learning models. Results: The final pooled cohort included 1798 adults (54.5% female; median age, 34 years [IQR, 24-50 years]). The transformer model that was trained using the pooled cohort had an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.67) and a weighted balanced accuracy of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64) on the test set. The model that was trained using the largest cohort only had AUROCs ranging from 0.52 to 0.60 and a weighted balanced accuracy ranging from 0.51 to 0.62 in the external validation cohorts. Number of pretreatment seizures, presence of psychiatric disorders, electroencephalography, and brain imaging findings were the most important clinical variables for predicted outcomes in both models. The transformer model that was developed using the pooled cohort outperformed 2 of the 5 other models tested in terms of AUROC. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a deep learning model showed the feasibility of personalized prediction of response to ASMs based on clinical information. With improvement of performance, such as by incorporating genetic and imaging data, this model may potentially assist clinicians in selecting the right drug at the first trial.

Indexed as

Deep LearningEpilepsyAdultArtificial IntelligenceCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMachine LearningMale

Identifiers

PMID36036923
PMCPMC9425285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.