ArticleBrain communications2025
Improving diagnostic accuracy of routine EEG for epilepsy using deep learning.
Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Development and validation of a deep survival model to predict time to seizure from routine electroencephalography.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Population-based spectral characteristics of normal interictal scalp EEG inform diagnosis and treatment planning in focal epilepsy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Value of Normal Interictal EEGs in Epilepsy Diagnosis and Treatment Planning: A Retrospective Cohort Study using Population-level Spectral Power and Connectivity Patterns.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The yield of routine EEG to diagnose epilepsy is limited by low sensitivity and the potential for misinterpretation of interictal epileptiform discharges. Our objective is to develop, train and validate a deep learning model that can identify epilepsy from routine EEG recordings, complementing traditional interpretation based on identifying interictal discharges. This is a retrospective cohort study of diagnostic accuracy. All consecutive patients undergoing routine EEG at our tertiary care centre between January 2018 and September 2019 were included. EEGs recorded between July 2019 and September 2019 constituted a temporally shifted testing cohort. The diagnosis of epilepsy was established by the treating neurologist at the end of the available follow-up period, based on clinical file review. Original EEG reports were reviewed for IEDs. We developed seven novel deep learning models based on Vision Transformers and Convolutional Neural Networks, training them to classify raw EEG recordings. We compared their performance to interictal discharge-based interpretation and two previously proposed machine learning methods. The study included 948 EEGs from 846 patients (820 EEGs/728 patients in training/validation, 128 EEGs/118 patients in testing). Median follow-up was 2.2 years and 1.7 years in each cohort, respectively. Our flagship Vision Transformer model, DeepEpilepsy, achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.83), outperforming interictal discharge-based interpretation (0.69; 0.64-0.73) and previous methods. Combining DeepEpilepsy with interictal discharges increased the performance to 0.83 (0.77-0.89). DeepEpilepsy can identify epilepsy on routine EEG independently of interictal discharges, suggesting that deep learning can detect novel EEG patterns relevant to epilepsy diagnosis. Further research is needed to understand the exact nature of these patterns and evaluate the clinical impact of this increased diagnostic yield in specific settings.
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.