ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Automated Seizure Detection Based on State-Space Model Identification.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiscale Cosine Convolution Neural Network for Robust and Interpretable Epileptic EEG Detection.Biosensors · 2026Article
- CPRSCA-ResNet: a novel ResNet-based model with Channel-Partitioned Resolution Spatial-Channel Attention for EEG-based seizure detection.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Real-Time Postural Disturbance Detection Through Sensor Fusion of EEG and Motion Data Using Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we developed a machine learning model for automated seizure detection using system identification techniques on EEG recordings. System identification builds mathematical models from a time series signal and uses a small number of parameters to represent the entirety of time domain signal epochs. Such parameters were used as features for the classifiers in our study. We analyzed 69 seizure and 55 non-seizure recordings and an additional 10 continuous recordings from Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, alongside a larger dataset from the CHB-MIT database. By dividing EEGs into epochs (1 s, 2 s, 5 s, and 10 s) and employing fifth-order state-space dynamic systems for feature extraction, we tested various classifiers, with the decision tree and 1 s epochs achieving the highest performance: 96.0% accuracy, 92.7% sensitivity, and 97.6% specificity based on the Jefferson dataset. Moreover, as the epoch length increased, the accuracy dropped to 94.9%, with a decrease in sensitivity to 91.5% and specificity to 96.7%. Accuracy for the CHB-MIT dataset was 94.1%, with 87.6% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity. The subject-specific cases showed improved results, with an average of 98.3% accuracy, 97.4% sensitivity, and 98.4% specificity. The average false detection rate per hour was 0.5 ± 0.28 in the 10 continuous EEG recordings. This study suggests that using a system identification technique, specifically, state-space modeling, combined with machine learning classifiers, such as decision trees, is an effective and efficient approach to automated seizure detection.
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.