ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026
Artificial intelligence for automated detection of interictal epileptiform discharges: methodological progress, clinical evaluation, and neurodevelopmental context.
Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) are established electroencephalographic biomarkers that support epilepsy diagnosis and characterization, but their visual identification is time-consuming and subject to inter-rater variability. This review critically examines automated IED analysis from rule-based systems to contemporary deep learning, with particular attention to task definition, validation design, and clinical workflow. We use the term "accuracy paradox" as an author-defined descriptive label-not as an established field-wide concept-for the mismatch between high performance on presegmented epochs or recording-level classification and the temporal and spatial precision required for event-level interpretation. Accuracy, area under the curve, F1 score, concordance, and false positives per hour quantify different aspects of performance and should not be treated as interchangeable. Clinical evaluation should therefore specify the target event, temporal and spatial matching rules, recording duration, annotated event count, validation level, and intended use, while reporting sensitivity, precision, F1 score, false-positive burden, and workflow outcomes as appropriate. We also discuss neurodevelopmental and cellular mechanisms that may influence network excitability, including neuroinflammation, complement-associated synaptic remodeling, and chloride homeostasis. Available evidence supports biological plausibility but does not establish that AI-derived IED morphology can reveal molecular states in individual patients. We propose a translational framework based on independent multicenter validation, context-specific operating thresholds, robust evaluation of explanations, and human-in-the-loop triage. Prospective studies integrating scalp or intracranial EEG with spatially matched surgical tissue and single-cell or spatial transcriptomic profiling could test macro-to-molecular hypotheses, but these applications remain investigational.
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.