ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Data transformation of unstructured electroencephalography reports by natural language processing: improving data usability for large-scale epilepsy studies.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular technique that provides neurologists with electrographic insights and clinical interpretations. However, these insights are predominantly presented in unstructured textual formats, which complicates data extraction and analysis. In this study, we introduce a hierarchical algorithm aimed at transforming unstructured EEG reports from pediatric patients diagnosed with epilepsy into structured data using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Methods: The proposed algorithm consists of two distinct phases: a deep learning-based text classification followed by a series of rule-based keyword extraction procedures. First, we categorized the EEG reports into two primary groups: normal and abnormal. Thereafter, we systematically identified the key indicators of cerebral dysfunction or seizures, distinguishing between focal and generalized seizures, as well as identifying the epileptiform discharges and their specific anatomical locations. For this study, we retrospectively analyzed a dataset comprising 17,172 EEG reports from 3,423 pediatric patients. Among them, we selected 6,173 normal and 6,173 abnormal reports confirmed by neurologists for algorithm development. Results: The developed algorithm successfully classified EEG reports into 1,000 normal and 1,000 abnormal reports, and effectively identified the presence of cerebral dysfunction or seizures within these reports. Furthermore, our findings revealed that the algorithm translated abnormal reports into structured tabular data with an accuracy surpassing 98.5% when determining the type of seizures (focal or generalized). Additionally, the accuracy for detecting epileptiform discharges and their respective locations exceeded 88.5%. These outcomes were validated through both internal and external assessments involving 800 reports from two different medical institutions. Discussion: Our primary focus was to convert EEG reports into structured datasets, diverging from the traditional methods of formulating clinical notes or discharge summaries. We developed a hierarchical and streamlined approach leveraging keyword selections guided by neurologists, which contributed to the exceptional performance of our algorithm. Overall, this methodology enhances data accessibility as well as improves the potential for further research and clinical applications in the field of pediatric epilepsy management.
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.