ArticleScientific reports2026
A transparent AI assurance and benchmarking framework for EEG seizure detection on TUSZ seeded with a reproducible gradient-boosting ensemble.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable evaluation is essential for clinically usable automated electroencephalography (EEG) seizure detection. Although the TUH EEG Seizure Corpus (TUSZ) is the de facto benchmark, studies often use non-canonical splits, mix patients across partitions, or evaluate on seizure-only segments, making results hard to compare. We release an open-source, transparent benchmark for offline binary seizure detection on TUSZ v2.0.3 that strictly follows the official Train/Dev/Eval partition and evaluates in continuous EEG. Each 60-s window (15-s stride) is mapped to expert features and classified by three CatBoost ensembles: a within-window base model and two temporal-context models (full and high-sensitivity). We cast operating-point selection as an alarm-budget decision problem: on the Development set, we jointly choose the score threshold and event post-processing to maximize event sensitivity while enforcing specificity ≥ 0.93 and false alarms ≤ 0.69 per hour, then freeze this decision policy and apply it once to the held-out Eval set. On Eval, we obtain AUROC 0.92 and balanced accuracy 0.83 at the window level and event sensitivity 0.75 at 0.68 false alarms/hour (time-based positive predictive value [PPV] 0.57; recall 0.76). We provide the protocol and results as a reproducible baseline and clinically oriented benchmark for comparing past and future models.
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.