ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Interpretable Machine Learning to Anticipate the Diagnostic Yield of EEG in the Emergency department. The EMINENCE study.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.