ArticleScientific reports2024
Deep learning based automatic detection and dipole estimation of epileptic discharges in MEG: a multi-center study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- MEG Neural Decoding Pipeline: The Issues Residing Within The Data and Methods to Improve Your Decoding Accuracy.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Real-world federated learning for brain imaging scientists.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Expanding Frontier: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Neuroradiology.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) provides crucial information in diagnosing focal epilepsy. However, dipole estimation, a commonly used analysis method for MEG, can be time-consuming since it necessitates neurophysiologists to manually identify epileptic spikes. To reduce this burden, we developed the automatic detection of spikes using deep learning in single center. In this study, we performed a multi-center study using six MEG centers to improve the performance of the automated detection of neuromagnetically recorded epileptic spikes, which we previously developed using deep learning. Data from four centers were used for training and evaluation (internal data), and the remaining two centers were used for evaluation only (external data). We used a five-fold subject-wise cross-validation technique to train and evaluate the models. A comparison showed that the multi-center model outperformed the single-center model in terms of performance. The multi-center model achieved an average ROC-AUC of 0.9929 and 0.9426 for the internal and external data, respectively. The median distance between the neurophysiologist-analyzed and automatically analyzed dipoles was 4.36 and 7.23 mm for the multi-center model for internal and external data, respectively, indicating accurate detection of epileptic spikes. By training data from multiple centers, automated analysis can improve spike detection and reduce the analysis workload for neurophysiologists. This study suggests that the multi-center model has the potential to detect spikes within 1 cm of a neurophysiologist's analysis. This multi-center model can significantly reduce the number of hours required by neurophysiologists to detect spikes.
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.