ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Identification of Post-Ictal Generalised EEG Suppression with Two-Channel EEG.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pathophysiological frameworks and emerging preventative strategies in SUDEP.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the feasibility of using a two-channel subcutaneous EEG device (SubQ) to detect and monitor PGES. The SubQ device, developed by UNEEG Medical A/S, offers a minimally invasive alternative to scalp EEG, enabling ultra-long-term monitoring and remote data analysis. We used annotated scalp EEG data and data from the SubQ device. The pre-processing pipeline included channel reduction, resampling, filtering, and feature extraction. A Variational Auto-Encoder (VAE) was employed for anomaly detection, trained to identify PGES instances, and post-processing was applied to predict their duration. The VAE achieved a 100% detection rate for PGES in both scalp and SubQ datasets. However, the predicted durations had an average offset of 35.67 s for scalp EEG and 26.42 s for SubQ data. The model's false positive rate (FPR) was 59% for scalp EEG and 56% for SubQ data, indicating a need for further refinement to reduce false alarms. This study demonstrates the potential of subcutaneous EEG as a valuable tool in the study of epilepsy and the monitoring of PGES, ultimately contributing to a better understanding and management of SUDEP risk.
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.