ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Toward automated neonatal EEG analysis: multi-center validation of a reliable deep learning pipeline.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain activity as a candidate biomarker for personalised caffeine treatment in premature neonates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Pharmacological treatment for apnoea of prematurity-the need for an individualised approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and generalization of NeoNaid, a fully automated software tool for neonatal EEG analysis, based on functional brain age (FBA) estimation and sleep staging. Methods: NeoNaid combines a multi-task deep learning model with proposed quality control routines detecting artifacts, out-of-distribution inputs, and uncertain predictions. Based on a raw EEG input, it outputs one global FBA estimate and a continuous 2-state hypnogram. We validated performance on two independent hospital settings: an internal dataset (33 EEGs, 17 infants, median 900 min/recording) and an external dataset (38 EEGs, 24 infants, median 124 min/recording). Results: Quality control rejected a comparable number of segments in the internal and external datasets, reducing extreme errors in FBA estimation, and modestly improving sleep staging accuracy. Across the internal and external data, NeoNaid achieved median absolute FBA errors of 0.50 and 0.55 weeks and Cohen's Kappa values of 0.89 and 0.87 for quiet sleep detection, respectively. Discussion: NeoNaid demonstrated improved reliability through integrated quality control and maintained performance across two independent datasets. By focusing on validation and trustworthiness, this work takes an essential step toward clinical adoption of automated neonatal EEG analysis and supports its utility for both NICU practice and large-scale research.
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.