Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39530797›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2025

Expert level of detection of interictal discharges with a deep neural network.

Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Martijn R Tannemaat, Luuk Wieske, Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar, Bas C Stunnenberg, Hanneke M Keijzer, Johannes H T M Koelman, Selma C Tromp, Ioana Dunca, Baukje J van der Star and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Could AI safeguard us from AI?Brain communications · 2024
    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

12 authors.

Marleen C Tjepkema-CloostermansDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0686-7284
Martijn R TannemaatDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Luuk WieskeDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Anne-Fleur van RootselaarDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8376-9098
Bas C StunnenbergDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Hanneke M KeijzerDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Johannes H T M KoelmanDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Selma C TrompDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9799-7481
Ioana DuncaDepartment of Neurology Centrul Medical Emerald, Bucharest, Romania.
Baukje J van der StarDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Myrthe E de KoningDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Michel J A M van PuttenDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8319-3626

Funding

EpilepsieNL WAR16-08
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDeep learning methods have shown potential in automating the detection of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) in electroencephalography (EEG). We compared IED detection using our previously trained deep neural network with a group of experts to assess its potential applicability.

methodsFirst, we performed clinical validation on an internal data set. Seven experts reviewed all EEG studies. Performance agreement between experts and the network was compared at both the EEG and IED levels. All EEG recordings were also processed with Persyst. Subsequently, we performed external validation, with data from four centers, using a hybrid approach, where detections by the deep neural network were reviewed by an expert. In case of disagreement with the original report, the EEG recording was annotated independently by five experts.

resultsFor internal validation we included 22 EEG studies with IEDs and 28 EEG studies from controls. At the EEG level, our network showed performance similar to that of the experts. For individual IED detection, the sensitivities between experts ranged from 20.7%-86.4%, whereas the sensitivity of our network was 82.5% (confidence interval [CI]: 77.7%-87.4%) at 99% specificity and a false detection rate (FDR) of <.2/min, outperforming Persyst, with 64.6% sensitivity (CI: 61.4%-67.9%) at 98% specificity. External validation in 174 EEG studies demonstrated that all 85 EEG recordings classified as normal in the original report were classified correctly, with an FDR of .10/min. Of the 89 EEG studies with IEDs according to the report, 56 were correctly classified (Cohen's κ = .62). Visual analysis of the remaining 33 EEG recordings showed high interobserver variability among the five experts (Fleiss' κ = .13). SIGNIFICANCE: Our deep neural network detects IEDs on par with clinical experts. The external validation in a hybrid approach showed substantial agreement with the original report. Disagreement was due mainly to high interobserver variability. Our deep neural network may support visual EEG analysis and assist in diagnostics, particularly when human resources are limited.

Indexed as

Deep LearningElectroencephalographyEpilepsyNeural Networks, ComputerFemaleHumansMaleSensitivity and Specificityclinical validationdeep learningepilepsyinterictal epileptiform discharge

Identifiers

PMID39530797
PMCPMC11742546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.