ArticleNEJM AI2025
Expert-Level Detection of Epilepsy Markers in EEG on Short and Long Timescales.
Article in NEJM AI, 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.
- Association between Interictal Spike Rate and Seizure Frequency in a Large Epilepsy Cohort.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Epilepsy grand challenge 2025.Frontiers in neurology · 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
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpileptiform discharges, or spikes, within electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings are essential for diagnosing epilepsy and localizing seizure origins. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising approach to automating detection, but current models are often hindered by artifact-related false positives and often target either event- or EEG-level classification, thus limiting clinical utility.
methodsWe developed SpikeNet2, a deep-learning model based on a residual network architecture, and enhanced it with hard-negative mining to reduce false positives. Our study analyzed 17,812 EEG recordings from 13,523 patients across multiple institutions, including Massachusetts General Brigham (MGB) hospitals. Data from the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP) and SCORE-AI (SAI) were also included. A total of 32,433 event-level samples, labeled by experts, were used for training and evaluation. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), calibration error, and a modified area under the curve (mAUC) metric. The model's generalizability was evaluated using external datasets.
resultsSpikeNet2 demonstrated strong performance in event-level spike detection, achieving an AUROC of 0.973 and an AUPRC of 0.995, with 44% of experts surpassing the model on the MGB dataset. In external validation, the model achieved an AUROC of 0.942 and an AUPRC of 0.948 on the HEP dataset. For EEG-level classification, SpikeNet2 recorded an AUROC of 0.958 and an AUPRC of 0.959 on the MGB dataset, an AUROC of 0.888 and an AUPRC of 0.823 on the HEP dataset, and an AUROC of 0.995 and an AUPRC of 0.991 on the SAI dataset, with 32% of experts outperforming the model. The false-positive rate was reduced to an average of nine spikes per hour.
conclusionsSpikeNet2 offers expert-level accuracy in both event-level spike detection and EEG-level classification, while significantly reducing false positives. Its dual functionality and robust performance across diverse datasets make it a promising tool for clinical and telemedicine applications, particularly in resource-limited settings. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
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.