An artificial intelligence-based EEG algorithm for detection of epileptiform EEG discharges: Validation against the diagnostic gold standard
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From A Comprehensive Review on Synergy of Multi-Modal Data and AI Technologies in Medical Diagnosis (2024) · cites this paper as [171]
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