Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42062615›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2026

Interpretable Machine Learning to Anticipate the Diagnostic Yield of EEG in the Emergency department. The EMINENCE study.

Maenia Scarpino, Ester Marra, Piergiuseppe Liuzzi, Benedetta Piccardi, Peiman Nazerian, Ilaria Sgrilli, Andrea Mannini, Andrea Nencioni, Antonello Grippo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maenia ScarpinoNeurophysiopathology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Ester MarraIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS, Via di Scandicci 269, Florence, Italy. emarra@dongnocchi.it.
Piergiuseppe LiuzziIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS, Via di Scandicci 269, Florence, Italy.
Benedetta PiccardiStroke Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Peiman NazerianEmergency Department, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Ilaria SgrilliNeurophysiopathology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Andrea ManniniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS, Via di Scandicci 269, Florence, Italy.
Andrea Nencioni *Emergency Department, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Antonello Grippo *Neurophysiopathology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Funding

Ministero della Salute Ricerca Corrente
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmergent electroencephalography (emEEG) is increasingly employed in the emergency department (ED) for evaluating altered consciousness and seizure-related conditions, yet standardized criteria guiding its use remain limited.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 1,018 patients (mean age 66 ± 20 years; 48.4% female) undergoing emEEG at the ED of the Careggi Teaching Hospital (Florence, Italy) in 2023. Clinical, anamnestic, and neuroimaging data available at admission were used to train supervised machine-learning (ML) models. We evaluated tree-based ensembles (Random Forest and XGBoost) to predict abnormal and epileptiform emEEG, as well as confirmation or refutation of initial diagnosis. Ground-truth labels were derived from a multidisciplinary expert team including neurologists, neurophysiopathologists and intensivists. Model performance was assessed with 5 × 5 nested cross-validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, balanced accuracy, decision-curve analysis, and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) interpretability.

resultsAbnormal emEEG occurred in 691 cases (67.9%), epileptiform activity in 192 patients (18.9%). emEEG ruled out the initial diagnostic suspicion in 514 cases (50.5%) and confirmed it in 188 cases (18.5%). Best performance was obtained with Random Forest for abnormal emEEG (AUC 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76-0.82) and diagnosis rule-out (0.84, 0.81-0.86), and with XGBoost for epileptiform emEEG (0.82, 0.78-0.85) and diagnosis confirmation (0.82, 0.79-0.85). Performance varied by initial diagnostic suspicion, but subgroup-stratified analyses showed overall consistent patterns. Key predictive features included altered consciousness, prior brain lesions, antiseizure therapy, and seizure-related presentations. Interpretability analyses revealed seizure-centric features drove confirmation, while systemic or nonspecific features favored refutation.

conclusionsInterpretable ML models using only admission data can predict emEEG outcomes and anticipate their diagnostic contribution, supporting triage and decision-making in emergency neurology without replacing clinical judgment. Models and explanations were easily usable on a freely-accessible website ( www.emergencyeeg.com ), where tools return probabilistic outputs for all four prediction tasks together with per-patient explanation plots, enabling transparent and reproducible use. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEmergency Service, HospitalMachine LearningSeizuresAgedBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestRetrospective StudiesClinical decision support systems.Emergency departmentEmergent EEGMachine-Learning

Identifiers

PMID42062615
PMCPMC13132943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.