4.6 Article

An artificial intelligence-based EEG algorithm for detection of epileptiform EEG discharges: Validation against the diagnostic gold standard

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 131, 期 6, 页码 1174-1179

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.02.032

关键词

Automatic spike detection; Biomarker; Deep learning; EEG; Interictal epileptiform discharges; Epilepsy

资金

  1. Henry & Carla Hansen Foundation
  2. Austrian Research Promotion Agency [864182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To validate an artificial intelligence-based computer algorithm for detection of epileptiform EEG discharges (EDs) and subsequent identification of patients with epilepsy. Methods: We developed an algorithm for automatic detection of EDs, based on a novel deep learning method that requires a low amount of labeled EEG data for training. Detected EDs are automatically grouped into clusters, consisting of the same type of EDs, for rapid visual inspection. We validated the algorithm on an independent dataset of 100 patients with sharp transients in their EEG recordings (54 with epilepsy and 46 with non-epileptic paroxysmal events). The diagnostic gold standard was derived from the video-EEG recordings of the patients' habitual events. Results: The algorithm had a sensitivity of 89% for identifying EEGs with EDs recorded from patients with epilepsy, a specificity of 70%, and an overall accuracy of 80%. Conclusions: Automated detection of EDs using an artificial intelligence-based computer algorithm had a high sensitivity. Human (expert) supervision is still necessary for confirming the clusters of detected EDs and for describing clinical correlations. Further studies on different patient populations will be needed to confirm our results. Significance: The automated algorithm we describe here is a useful tool, assisting neurophysiologist in rapid assessment of EEG recordings. (C) 2020 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据