ArticleBrain sciences2024
Evaluation of the Relation between Ictal EEG Features and XAI Explanations.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the prediction models for brain signal-based emotion recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A transparent AI assurance and benchmarking framework for EEG seizure detection on TUSZ seeded with a reproducible gradient-boosting ensemble.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Method Based on Multivariate Variational Mode Decomposition for Classification of Epileptic Signals.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Combining meta and ensemble learning to classify EEG for seizure detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
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
Epilepsy is a neurological disease with one of the highest rates of incidence worldwide. Although EEG is a crucial tool for its diagnosis, the manual detection of epileptic seizures is time consuming. Automated methods are needed to streamline this process; although there are already several works that have achieved this, the process by which it is executed remains a black box that prevents understanding of the ways in which machine learning algorithms make their decisions. A state-of-the-art deep learning model for seizure detection and three EEG databases were chosen for this study. The developed models were trained and evaluated under different conditions (i.e., three distinct levels of overlap among the chosen EEG data windows). The classifiers with the best performance were selected, then Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAPs) and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIMEs) were employed to estimate the importance value of each EEG channel and the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was computed between the EEG features of epileptic signals and the importance values. The results show that the database and training conditions may affect a classifier's performance. The most significant accuracy rates were 0.84, 0.73, and 0.64 for the CHB-MIT, Siena, and TUSZ EEG datasets, respectively. In addition, most EEG features displayed negligible or low correlation with the importance values. Finally, it was concluded that a correlation between the EEG features and the importance values (generated by SHAP and LIME) may have been absent even for the high-performance 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.