ArticleBrain and behavior2025
How Neurologists Combine Clinical Signs and Subjective Factors to Diagnose Epileptic and Functional Seizures: Insights From Seizure Video Analysis.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating seizure semiology is crucial for distinguishing functional seizures (FS) from epileptic seizures (ES). This study examines how neurologists integrate clinical signs, observations, and subjective factors in making this distinction.
methodsNeurologists at Monash Health assessed unlabeled seizure videos on a web-based platform, providing free-text descriptions, selecting observed clinical signs, offering diagnoses, and rating their certainty (0-100). Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) clustered clinical signs, and thematic analysis was performed on free-text responses. Logistic regression evaluated how single signs, sign combinations, and rater consensus influenced diagnostic alignment. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsNMF identified two sign clusters: one associated with FS (eye closure, asynchronous limb jerking, headshaking, pelvic thrusting) and another with ES (eyes open, head version, tonic/dystonic posturing, automatisms, synchronous limb jerking). Diagnostic alignment was influenced by clinical sign combinations (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.15-1.64, p < 0.001) and rater consensus (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.15-1.77, p = 0.002). Models incorporating these factors incrementally improved performance, with the final model achieving an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.92, McFadden's R
conclusionNeurologists rely on distinct clinical sign patterns and subjective factors to differentiate FS from ES. Understanding these decision-making processes can improve diagnostic workflows and training programs.
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.