Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36740244›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia open2023

EEG datasets for seizure detection and prediction- A review.

Sheng Wong, Anj Simmons, Jessica Rivera-Villicana, Scott Barnett, Shobi Sivathamboo, Piero Perucca, Zongyuan Ge, Patrick Kwan, Levin Kuhlmann, Rajesh Vasa and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epilepsia open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.Current opinion in neurology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Economic aspects of prolonged home video-EEG monitoring: a simulation study.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sheng WongApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-1405
Anj SimmonsApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica Rivera-VillicanaApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Scott BarnettApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Shobi SivathambooDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4638-9579
Piero PeruccaDepartment of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7855-7066
Zongyuan GeMonash eResearch Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick KwanDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7310-276X
Levin KuhlmannDepartment of Data Science and AI, Faculty of IT, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5108-6348
Rajesh VasaApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Kon MouzakisApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Terence J O'BrienDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin University · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUAlfred Health · AUMonash Medical Centre · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) datasets from epilepsy patients have been used to develop seizure detection and prediction algorithms using machine learning (ML) techniques with the aim of implementing the learned model in a device. However, the format and structure of publicly available datasets are different from each other, and there is a lack of guidelines on the use of these datasets. This impacts the generatability, generalizability, and reproducibility of the results and findings produced by the studies. In this narrative review, we compiled and compared the different characteristics of the publicly available EEG datasets that are commonly used to develop seizure detection and prediction algorithms. We investigated the advantages and limitations of the characteristics of the EEG datasets. Based on our study, we identified 17 characteristics that make the EEG datasets unique from each other. We also briefly looked into how certain characteristics of the publicly available datasets affect the performance and outcome of a study, as well as the influences it has on the choice of ML techniques and preprocessing steps required to develop seizure detection and prediction algorithms. In conclusion, this study provides a guideline on the choice of publicly available EEG datasets to both clinicians and scientists working to develop a reproducible, generalizable, and effective seizure detection and prediction algorithm.

Indexed as

EpilepsySeizuresAlgorithmsElectroencephalographyHumansReproducibility of Resultsclassificationelectroencephalographymachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36740244
PMCPMC10235576
OpenAlexW4319295260

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.