ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024
Computer-assisted analysis of routine EEG to identify hidden biomarkers of epilepsy: A systematic review.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Deep Learning Revolution in Neuroimaging: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis (2014-2024).Neuroinformatics · 2026Review
- Exploring the complexity of EEG patterns in Parkinson's disease.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Enhancing surgical object detection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy with explicit positional relationship modeling.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Improving diagnostic accuracy of routine EEG for epilepsy using deep learning.Brain communications · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Computational analysis of routine electroencephalogram (rEEG) could improve the accuracy of epilepsy diagnosis. We aim to systematically assess the diagnostic performances of computed biomarkers for epilepsy in individuals undergoing rEEG. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM reviews, IEEE Explore and the grey literature for studies published between January 1961 and December 2022. We included studies reporting a computational method to diagnose epilepsy based on rEEG without relying on the identification of interictal epileptiform discharges or seizures. Diagnosis of epilepsy as per a treating physician was the reference standard. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted QUADAS-2 tool. Results: We screened 10 166 studies, and 37 were included. The sample size ranged from 8 to 192 (mean=54). The computed biomarkers were based on linear (43%), non-linear (27%), connectivity (38%), and convolutional neural networks (10%) models. The risk of bias was high or unclear in all studies, more commonly from spectrum effect and data leakage. Diagnostic accuracy ranged between 64% and 100%. We observed high methodological heterogeneity, preventing pooling of accuracy measures. Conclusion: The current literature provides insufficient evidence to reliably assess the diagnostic yield of computational analysis of rEEG. Significance: We provide guidelines regarding patient selection, reference standard, algorithms, and performance validation.
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.