ArticleScientific reports2023
Removing artefacts and periodically retraining improve performance of neural network-based seizure prediction models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Maintaining Electrode-Skin Interface for Motion-Robust Biosignal Monitoring.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Predicting Epileptic Seizures Using EfficientNet-B0 and SVMs: A Deep Learning Methodology for EEG Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Addressing data limitations in seizure prediction through transfer learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Concept-drifts adaptation for machine learning EEG epilepsy seizure prediction.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison between epileptic seizure prediction and forecasting based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- EEG epilepsy seizure prediction: the post-processing stage as a chronology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Signal quality evaluation of an in-ear EEG device in comparison to a conventional cap system.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- On the performance of seizure prediction machine learning methods across different databases: the sample and alarm-based perspectives.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of seizure prediction models is often based on long-term scalp electroencephalograms (EEGs) since they capture brain electrical activity, are non-invasive, and come at a relatively low-cost. However, they suffer from major shortcomings. First, long-term EEG is usually highly contaminated with artefacts. Second, changes in the EEG signal over long intervals, known as concept drift, are often neglected. We evaluate the influence of these problems on deep neural networks using EEG time series and on shallow neural networks using widely-used EEG features. Our patient-specific prediction models were tested in 1577 hours of continuous EEG, containing 91 seizures from 41 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy who were undergoing pre-surgical monitoring. Our results showed that cleaning EEG data, using a previously developed artefact removal method based on deep convolutional neural networks, improved prediction performance. We also found that retraining the models over time reduced false predictions. Furthermore, the results show that although deep neural networks processing EEG time series are less susceptible to false alarms, they may need more data to surpass feature-based methods. These findings highlight the importance of robust data denoising and periodic adaptation of seizure prediction models.
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.