Cited by 106EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEpilepsy research and treatmentECG Monitoring and Analysis

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

Fürbass, Franz, Kural, Mustafa Aykut, Gritsch, Gerhard, Hartmann, Manfred, Kluge, Tilmann, Beniczky, Sándor·2020·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.02.032

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fürbass et al. [171]'s DeepSpike algorithm attained sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 70%, and overall accuracy of 80%.

    “The experimental results indicated that the DeepSpike algorithm attained a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 70%, and an overall accuracy rate of 80%, showcasing its high effectiveness in identifying EEG discharges.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 106

Authors
Fürbass, F., Kural, M. A., Gritsch, G., Hartmann, M., Kluge, T., & Beniczky, S.
Affiliations
  • AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH (AT)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Beniczky, Sándor
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
131
Issue
6
Pages
1174-1179
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3014760149
Cited by
106
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
7.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
epilepsy diagnosis, deep learning, EEG clustering, non-epileptic paroxysmal events, video-EEG monitoring, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review