Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38732969›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Calibrating Deep Learning Classifiers for Patient-Independent Electroencephalogram Seizure Forecasting.

Sina Shafiezadeh, Gian Marco Duma, Giovanni Mento, Alberto Danieli, Lisa Antoniazzi, Fiorella Del Popolo Cristaldi, Paolo Bonanni, Alberto Testolin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prediction of Epilepsy Seizure Based on Cepstrum Analysis and Deep Learning.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Sina ShafiezadehDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5462-4893
Gian Marco DumaEpilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, 31015 Conegliano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-3920
Giovanni MentoDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-2056
Alberto DanieliEpilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, 31015 Conegliano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8390-5897
Lisa AntoniazziEpilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, 31015 Conegliano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8895-3380
Fiorella Del Popolo CristaldiDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3963-0582
Paolo BonanniEpilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, 31015 Conegliano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9448-9059
Alberto TestolinDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7062-4861

Funding

Italian Ministry of Health 5XMille
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent scientific literature abounds in proposals of seizure forecasting methods that exploit machine learning to automatically analyze electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. Deep learning algorithms seem to achieve a particularly remarkable performance, suggesting that the implementation of clinical devices for seizure prediction might be within reach. However, most of the research evaluated the robustness of automatic forecasting methods through randomized cross-validation techniques, while clinical applications require much more stringent validation based on patient-independent testing. In this study, we show that automatic seizure forecasting can be performed, to some extent, even on independent patients who have never been seen during the training phase, thanks to the implementation of a simple calibration pipeline that can fine-tune deep learning models, even on a single epileptic event recorded from a new patient. We evaluate our calibration procedure using two datasets containing EEG signals recorded from a large cohort of epileptic subjects, demonstrating that the forecast accuracy of deep learning methods can increase on average by more than 20%, and that performance improves systematically in all independent patients. We further show that our calibration procedure works best for deep learning models, but can also be successfully applied to machine learning algorithms based on engineered signal features. Although our method still requires at least one epileptic event per patient to calibrate the forecasting model, we conclude that focusing on realistic validation methods allows to more reliably compare different machine learning approaches for seizure prediction, enabling the implementation of robust and effective forecasting systems that can be used in daily healthcare practice.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningElectroencephalographySeizuresCalibrationEpilepsyHumansMachine LearningSignal Processing, Computer-Assistedcross-subjectcross-validationdomain adaptationelectroencephalographyepilepsymachine learningmodel calibrationmodel validationseizure predictionsignal processing

Identifiers

PMID38732969
PMCPMC11086106

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.