ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Real-world evaluation of an automated EEG spike detection software in a tertiary centre compared to a clinical reference standard.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) are transient spikes or waves that occur in electroencephalography (EEG) records and can help support the diagnosis and classification of epilepsy. High-throughput machine learning models aim to automate the detection of IEDs. Previous evaluations of machine learning models have reported non-inferiority compared to human experts, but these studies predominantly use small datasets of pre-selected, 'IED rich' records, which are not representative of clinical practice. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the accuracy of machine learning models in a large, routine, clinically representative cohort.
methodsAll routine EEGs performed in a large regional hospital in England were identified between June 2024 and February 2025. EEG records were run through the commercial machine learning model P15 and automated IED reports generated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of P15-detected IEDs were evaluated using the final clinical report as a reference standard.
resultsOf 484 EEG records, 53 were reported to contain at least one IED in the final clinical report. At P15's default sensitivity setting, sensitivity for IED detection was 81.1% (95% CI:77.6-84.6), specificity 59.9% (95% CI: 55.5-64.2), positive predictive value 19.9% (95% CI:16.3-23.5) and negative predictive value 96.3% (95% CI:94.6-98.0). DISCUSSION: This large-scale study of a machine learning model for identification of IEDs in a representative clinical population found a high negative predictive value suggesting that this may be a useful tool to rule out IEDs. However, the low positive predictive value demonstrates the potential for over-calling IEDs in routine EEGs. Future research should evaluate machine learning models alongside clinical feedback before this approach can have sufficient utility in direct clinical care.
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.