ArticleEpileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape2025
AI language model applications for early diagnosis of childhood epilepsy based on unstructured first-visit patient narratives: A cohort study.
Article in Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape, 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.
- AI language model applications for early diagnosis of childhood epilepsy based on unstructured first-visit patient narratives: A cohort study.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLanguage serves as an indispensable source of information for diagnosing epilepsy, and its computational analysis is increasingly explored. This study assessed - and compared - the diagnostic value of different language model applications in extracting information. The aim is to identify language patterns that may contain useful clinical information that is not overtly considered by the clinician from first-visit documentation to improve the early diagnosis of childhood epilepsy.
methodsWe analyzed 1561 patient letters from the first two seizure clinics. The dataset was divided into training and test sets to evaluate performance and generalizability. We employed an established Naïve Bayes model as a natural language processing technique and a sentence-embedding (large language) model based on the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) architecture. Both models analyzed anamnesis texts as noted by the treating physician only. Within the training sets, we identified predictive features consisting of keywords indicative of 'epilepsy' or 'no epilepsy.' Model outputs were compared to the clinician's final diagnosis (gold standard) after a two-year follow-up period. We computed accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for both models.
resultsThe Naïve Bayes model achieved an accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.78), with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85) and a specificity of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.72). The sentence-embedding model demonstrated comparable performance with an accuracy of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.79), a sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80), and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61-0.84). SIGNIFICANCE: Both models demonstrated relatively good performance in diagnosing childhood epilepsy solely based on the first-visit patient anamnesis text. Notably, the more advanced sentence-embedding model showed no improvement over the computationally simpler Naïve Bayes model. This suggests that modeling of anamnesis data does depend on word order for this particular classification task. Further refinement and exploration of language models and computational linguistic approaches are necessary to enhance diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice.
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.