ArticleNeuroImage2023
Identification and classification of pathology and artifacts for human intracranial cognitive research.
Article in NeuroImage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) presents a unique opportunity to extend human neuroscientific understanding. However, typically iEEG is collected from patients diagnosed with focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and contains transient bursts of pathological activity. This activity disrupts performances on cognitive tasks and can distort findings from human neurophysiology studies. In addition to manual marking by a trained expert, numerous IED detectors have been developed to identify these pathological events. Even so, the versatility and usefulness of these detectors is limited by training on small datasets, incomplete performance metrics, and lack of generalizability to iEEG. Here, we employed a large annotated public iEEG dataset from two institutions to train a random forest classifier (RFC) to distinguish data segments as either 'non-cerebral artifact' (n = 73,902), 'pathological activity' (n = 67,797), or 'physiological activity' (n = 151,290). We found our model performed with an accuracy of 0.941, specificity of 0.950, sensitivity of 0.908, precision of 0.911, and F1 score of 0.910, averaged across all three event types. We extended the generalizability of our model to continuous bipolar data collected in a task-state at a different institution with a lower sampling rate and found our model performed with an accuracy of 0.789, specificity of 0.806, and sensitivity of 0.742, averaged across all three event types. Additionally, we created a custom graphical user interface to implement our classifier and enhance usability.
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.