4.5 Review

A forward-looking review of seizure prediction

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 167-173

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000429

Keywords

devices; machine learning; prediction; seizure dynamics

Funding

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant [APP1065638]
  2. Kenneth Myer Foundation
  3. Pro Medicus Ltd

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Seizure prediction has made important advances over the last decade, with the recent demonstration that prospective seizure prediction is possible, though there remain significant obstacles to broader application. In this review, we will describe insights gained from long-term trials, with the aim of identifying research goals for the next decade. Recent findings Unexpected results from these studies, including strong and highly individual relationships between spikes and seizures, diurnal patterns of seizure activity, and the coexistence of different seizure populations within individual patients exhibiting distinctive dynamics, have caused us to re-evaluate many prior assumptions in seizure prediction studies and suggest alternative strategies that could be employed in the search for algorithms providing greater clinical utility. Advances in analytical approaches, particularly deep-learning techniques, harbour great promise and in combination with less-invasive systems with sufficiently powerefficient computational capacity will bring broader clinical application within reach. Summary We conclude the review with an exercise in wishful thinking, which asks what the ideal seizure prediction dataset would look like and how these data should be manipulated to maximize benefits for patients. The motivation for structuring the review in this way is to create a forward-looking, optimistic critique of the existing methodologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available