Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38454117›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparison between epileptic seizure prediction and forecasting based on machine learning.

Gonçalo Costa, César Teixeira, Mauro F Pinto

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06598189 (Real-time Seizure Detection, Classification, and Prediction Using a Low-Cost Low-Burden Ear-worn System), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06598189 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Real-time Seizure Detection, Classification, and Prediction Using a Low-Cost Low-Burden Ear-worn System

TypeinterventionalSponsorFelicia ChuRan2025 to 2032Enrolled40ConditionsSeizures, EpilepsyArmsEar-SD, Electroencephalogram
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Materials and System Design for Self-Decision Bioelectronic Systems.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Gonçalo CostaCenter for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal. goncalocosta@dei.uc.pt.
César TeixeiraCenter for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal.
Mauro F PintoCenter for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia CISUC - UID/CEC/00326/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epilepsy affects around 1% of the population worldwide. Anti-epileptic drugs are an excellent option for controlling seizure occurrence but do not work for around one-third of patients. Warning devices employing seizure prediction or forecasting algorithms could bring patients new-found comfort and quality of life. These algorithms would attempt to detect a seizure's preictal period, a transitional moment between regular brain activity and the seizure, and relay this information to the user. Over the years, many seizure prediction studies using Electroencephalogram-based methodologies have been developed, triggering an alarm when detecting the preictal period. Recent studies have suggested a shift in view from prediction to forecasting. Seizure forecasting takes a probabilistic approach to the problem in question instead of the crisp approach of seizure prediction. In this field of study, the triggered alarm to symbolize the detection of a preictal period is substituted by a constant risk assessment analysis. The present work aims to explore methodologies capable of seizure forecasting and establish a comparison with seizure prediction results. Using 40 patients from the EPILEPSIAE database, we developed several patient-specific prediction and forecasting algorithms with different classifiers (a Logistic Regression, a 15 Support Vector Machines ensemble, and a 15 Shallow Neural Networks ensemble). Results show an increase of the seizure sensitivity in forecasting relative to prediction of up to 146% and in the number of patients that displayed an improvement over chance of up to 300%. These results suggest that a seizure forecasting methodology may be more suitable for seizure warning devices than a seizure prediction one.

Indexed as

EpilepsyQuality of LifeAlgorithmsElectroencephalographyForecastingHumansMachine LearningSeizures

Identifiers

PMID38454117
PMCPMC10920642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.