Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37073831›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia open2023

The goal of explaining black boxes in EEG seizure prediction is not to explain models' decisions.

Mauro F Pinto, Joana Batista, Adriana Leal, Fábio Lopes, Ana Oliveira, António Dourado, Sulaiman I Abuhaiba, Francisco Sales, Pedro Martins, César A Teixeira

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mauro F PintoDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9359-4324
Joana BatistaDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Adriana LealDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5421-9284
Fábio LopesDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Ana OliveiraDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
António DouradoDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Sulaiman I AbuhaibaRefractory Epilepsy Reference Centre, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, EPE, Coimbra, Portugal.
Francisco SalesRefractory Epilepsy Reference Centre, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, EPE, Coimbra, Portugal.
Pedro MartinsDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
César A TeixeiraDepartment of Informatics Engineering, CISUC, Univ Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
University of Coimbra · PTHospitais da Universidade de Coimbra · PTUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many state-of-the-art methods for seizure prediction, using the electroencephalogram, are based on machine learning models that are black boxes, weakening the trust of clinicians in them for high-risk decisions. Seizure prediction concerns a multidimensional time-series problem that performs continuous sliding window analysis and classification. In this work, we make a critical review of which explanations increase trust in models' decisions for predicting seizures. We developed three machine learning methodologies to explore their explainability potential. These contain different levels of model transparency: a logistic regression, an ensemble of 15 support vector machines, and an ensemble of three convolutional neural networks. For each methodology, we evaluated quasi-prospectively the performance in 40 patients (testing data comprised 2055 hours and 104 seizures). We selected patients with good and poor performance to explain the models' decisions. Then, with grounded theory, we evaluated how these explanations helped specialists (data scientists and clinicians working in epilepsy) to understand the obtained model dynamics. We obtained four lessons for better communication between data scientists and clinicians. We found that the goal of explainability is not to explain the system's decisions but to improve the system itself. Model transparency is not the most significant factor in explaining a model decision for seizure prediction. Even when using intuitive and state-of-the-art features, it is hard to understand brain dynamics and their relationship with the developed models. We achieve an increase in understanding by developing, in parallel, several systems that explicitly deal with signal dynamics changes that help develop a complete problem formulation.

Indexed as

EpilepsyGoalsBrainElectroencephalographyHumansSeizuresdrug-resistant epilepsyEEGexplainabilitymachine learningseizure prediction

Identifiers

PMID37073831
PMCPMC10235568
OpenAlexW4366351911

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.