ArticleEpilepsia2025
Automated detection of interictal epileptiform discharges with few electroencephalographic channels.
Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for automated detection of interictal epileptiform discharges: methodological progress, clinical evaluation, and neurodevelopmental context.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Automated detection of interictal epileptiform discharges with few electroencephalographic channels.Epilepsia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) are crucial for epilepsy diagnosis and management. New electroencephalographic (EEG) devices with fewer electrodes are more accessible, but their ability to detect IEDs is uncertain. The aim of this study is to determine whether IEDs can be reliably detected in reduced-channel EEG data, enabling broader epilepsy diagnosis. Using EEG samples from 3378 patients and an external validation set of 51 patients, we trained Cyclops, a deep neural network designed to function across various channel configurations. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and other clinically relevant metrics, including IED source location sensitivity. Cyclops demonstrated strong performance even with minimal channels. AUROC for one channel was .876 (95% confidence interval [CI] = .854-.897); best configuration based on a clinically available product was .950 (95% CI = .936-.962); for the detection of focal IEDs with two local channels, AUROC values ranged from .701 (95% CI = .656-.745) to .930 (95% CI = .902-.955), with a median AUROC of .809. On the external validation set, performance ranged from .692 (95% CI = .593-.782) to .949 (95% CI = .922-.972), with a median AUROC of .846. Thus, Cyclops demonstrates that effective IED detection is possible with reduced EEG setups, enhancing accessibility and expanding epilepsy diagnosis to broader patient populations.
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.