ArticleBrain sciences2022
EPIAMNE: A New Scoring System for Differentiating Transient EPIleptic AMNEsia from Transient Global Amnesia.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A spectral- topological network signature of drug-resistant epilepsy: a phase 1-2 study on resting-state EEG-based diagnostic biomarkers of drug resistance.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2026Observational
- Transient epileptic amnesia: temporal progression of partially treated disease-a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transient epileptic amnesia (TEA) is a rare cause of acute amnestic syndromes (AAS), often misdiagnosed as transient global amnesia (TGA). We proposed a scoring system—the EPIlepsy AMNEsia (EPIAMNE) score—using quantitative EEG (qEEG) analysis to obtain a tool for differentiating TEA from TGA. We retrospectively reviewed clinical information and standard EEGs (stEEG) of 19 patients with TEA and 21 with TGA. We computed and compared Power Spectral Density, demonstrating an increased relative theta power in TGA. We subsequently incorporated qEEG features in EPIAMNE score, together with clinical and stEEG features. ROC curve models and pairwise ROC curve comparison were used to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy for TEA detection of EPIAMNE score, presence of symptoms atypical for TGA (pSymAT) and identification of anomalies (interictal epileptiform or temporal focal spiky transients) at stEEG (PosEEG). Area Under the Curve (AUC) of EPIAMNE score revealed to be higher than PosEEG and pSymAT (AUCEPIAMNE = 0.95, AUCpSymAT = 0.85, AUCPosEEG = 0.67) and this superiority proved to be statistically significant (p-valueEPIAMNE-PosEEG and p-valueEPIAMNE-pSymAT < 0.05). In conclusion, EPIAMNE score classified TEA with higher accuracy than PosEEG and pSymAT. This approach could become a promising tool for the differential diagnosis of AAS, especially for early TEA detection.
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.