4.6 Review

Machine learning for detection of interictal epileptiform discharges

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 132, 期 7, 页码 1433-1443

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2021.02.403

关键词

Electroencephalogram; Interictal epileptiform discharges; Automated detection; Machine learning; Deep learning; Convolutional neural networks

资金

  1. Epilepsiefonds Foundation [WAR16-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the importance of EEG in the diagnosis and classification of epilepsy, with a focus on the detection of Interictal Epileptiform Discharges (IEDs), the development of automated methods, and their limitations. Traditional machine learning and deep learning methods have shown the best results in IED detection so far, but the standardization of datasets and outcome measures is needed for a more objective comparison of models.
The electroencephalogram (EEG) is a fundamental tool in the diagnosis and classification of epilepsy. In particular, Interictal Epileptiform Discharges (IEDs) reflect an increased likelihood of seizures and are routinely assessed by visual analysis of the EEG. Visual assessment is, however, time consuming and prone to subjectivity, leading to a high misdiagnosis rate and motivating the development of automated approaches. Research towards automating IED detection started 45 years ago. Approaches range from mimetic methods to deep learning techniques. We review different approaches to IED detection, dis-cussing their performance and limitations. Traditional machine learning and deep learning methods have yielded the best results so far and their application in the field is still growing. Standardization of datasets and outcome measures is necessary to compare models more objectively and decide which should be implemented in a clinical setting. (c) 2021 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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