ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Assessing the performance of artificial intelligence in detecting electrographic status epilepticus when human experts often disagree.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Generating reference standards to train and evaluate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms poses a significant challenge. Particularly when interpreting complex signals like electroencephalography (EEG), where interrater variability is considerable. We aimed to characterize the impact of interrater variability when evaluating the performance of an AI algorithm for detecting electrographic status epilepticus in point-of-care (POC) limited-montage EEG. Methods: We analyzed 604 EEGs collected using a POC EEG system (Ceribell Inc.). Each EEG was independently reviewed by 5-7 blinded experts, who annotated seizures and completed standardized assessments. The EEGs were later analyzed by the Clarity AI algorithm (version 7), trained on separate EEG dataset. Interrater agreement was assessed using Gwet's AC1. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting electrographic status epilepticus (ESE) were estimated for the reviewers and the AI algorithm. Multiple evaluation schemes were employed, including simple majority consensus of the full group (group majority), simple majority using leave-one-out analysis, and 2-of-3 majority with bootstrap sampling. Results: Of 604 POC EEGs, the group majority identified 8 cases (1.3%) meeting ACNS criteria for ESE and 14 (2.3%) with seizures, the rest were classified as normal/slowing (80.1%), highly epileptiform patterns (6.6%), or other findings (4.3%). Twentynine cases lacked consensus interpretation. Interrater agreement among reviewers was 0.67-0.68. Compared to the group majority, the AI algorithm showed higher sensitivity (median 100%) with lower specificity (93.5%) than individual reviewers (median sensitivity 60%, specificity 98.7%). Using all possible 3-reviewer combinations to define majority agreement, the number of EEGs identified as ESE varied widely (4-18 cases, median = 10). The AI algorithm consistently achieved significantly higher sensitivity than external human reviewers (71.4% vs. 50%, Discussion: This study highlights the challenges of defining the correct answer for EEG interpretation, especially for ESE, and its consequences for evaluating seizure detection AI tools. Future work should explore how AI assistance impacts human interpretation, particularly in reducing interrater variability across a broader range of EEG patterns.
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.