ArticleClinical and experimental pediatrics2026
Patient-independent automated pediatric seizure monitoring based on expert-labeled electrographic ictal data as core reference knowledge.
Article in Clinical and experimental pediatrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Automated seizure detection using scalp electroencephalography (EEG) is essential to the efficient monitoring of seizures in patients with epilepsy. However, patient-independent seizure detection remains challenging, primarily because of the inherent intersubject variability in EEG characteristics. Purpose: We proposed a patient-independent seizure detection approach based on 1,604 single-channel electrographic focal-onset ictal EEG segments verified by epileptologists in patients with focal epilepsy. Methods: We constructed deep learning models trained on these segments and applied them to individual EEG channels to identify seizure occurrences. To evaluate patient-independent detection performance, we conducted internal validation using the 2 datasets employed for segment acquisition, followed by external validation with an independent unseen dataset obtained from a tertiary medical institution. Results: In the internal validation using a leave-one-patient-out scenario, overall sensitivity, false alarm rate, and latency were 80.1%-100%, 0.64-1.13/hr, and 8.0-21.4 seconds, respectively. In the external validation using the final seizure detection model, the corresponding values were 100%, 0.38-0.67/hr, and 10.0-10.2 seconds, respectively, according to detection length. This technique outperformed those of previous patient-independent studies that employed relatively simple deep learning tasks. Conclusion: A curated set of expert-labeled ictal EEG segments served as the core reference knowledge for the proposed seizure detector in recognizing seizure occurrence in unseen patients. Because the proposed approach analyzes individual channels in parallel, it may be clinically applicable to continuous seizure monitoring, particularly in wearable seizure detection systems with a limited number of channels.
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.