Seizure Detection in Continuous Inpatient EEG: A Comparison of Human vs Automated Review

Single-channel seizure detection with clinical confirmation of seizure locations using CHB-MIT dataset

Introduction

Long-term electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring is advised to patients with refractory epilepsy who have a failure of anti-seizure medication and therapy. However, its real-life application is limited mainly due to the use of multiple EEG channels. We proposed a patient-specific deep learning-based single-channel seizure detection approach using the long-term scalp EEG recordings of the Children's Hospital Boston-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (CHB-MIT) dataset, in conjunction with neurologists' confirmation of spatial seizure characteristics of individual patients.

Methods

We constructed 18-, 4-, and single-channel seizure detectors for 13 patients. Neurologists selected a specific channel among four channels, two close to the behind-the-ear and two at the forehead for each patient, after reviewing the patient's distinctive seizure locations with seizure re-annotation.

Results

Our multi- and single-channel detectors achieved an average sensitivity of 97.05-100%, false alarm rate of 0.22-0.40/h, and latency of 2.1-3.4 s for identification of seizures in continuous EEG recordings. The results demonstrated that seizure detection performance of our single-channel approach was comparable to that of our multi-channel ones.

Discussion

We suggest that our single-channel approach in conjunction with clinical designation of the most prominent seizure locations has a high potential for wearable seizure detection on long-term EEG recordings for patients with refractory epilepsy.

Artificial intelligence in neurology: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications

Neurological conditions are the leading cause of disability and mortality combined, demanding innovative, scalable, and sustainable solutions. Brain health has become a global priority with adoption of the World Health Organization's Intersectoral Global Action Plan in 2022. Simultaneously, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are revolutionizing neurological research and practice. This scoping review of 66 original articles explores the value of AI in neurology and brain health, systematizing the landscape for emergent clinical opportunities and future trends across the care trajectory: prevention, risk stratification, early detection, diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation. AI's potential to advance personalized precision neurology and global brain health directives hinges on resolving core challenges across four pillars-models, data, feasibility/equity, and regulation/innovation-through concerted pursuit of targeted recommendations. Paramount actions include swift, ethical, equity-focused integration of novel technologies into clinical workflows, mitigating data-related issues, counteracting digital inequity gaps, and establishing robust governance frameworks balancing safety and innovation.

EEG based automated seizure detection - A survey of medical professionals

Diagnosing and managing seizures presents substantial challenges for clinicians caring for patients with epilepsy. Although machine learning (ML) has been proposed for automated seizure detection using EEG data, there is little evidence of these technologies being broadly adopted in clinical practice. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of surveys investigating this topic from the perspective of medical practitioners, which limits the understanding of the obstacles for the development of effective automated seizure detection. Besides the issue of generalisability and replicability seen in a small amount of studies, obstacles to the adoption of automated seizure detection remain largely unknown. To understand the obstacles preventing the application of seizure detection tools in clinical practice, we conducted a survey targeting medical professionals involved in the management of epilepsy. Our study aimed to gather insights on various factors such as the clinical utility, professional sentiment, benchmark requirements, and perceived barriers associated with the use of automated seizure detection tools. Our key findings are: I) The minimum acceptable sensitivity reported by most of our respondents (80%) seems achievable based on studies reported from most currently available ML-based EEG seizure detection algorithms, but replication studies often fail to meet this minimum. II) Respondents are receptive to the adoption of ML seizure detection tools and willing to spend time in training. III) The top three barriers for usage of such tools in clinical practice are related to availability, lack of training, and the blackbox nature of ML algorithms. Based on our findings, we developed a guide that can serve as a basis for developing ML-based seizure detection tools that meet the requirements of medical professionals, and foster the integration of these tools into clinical practice.

Comparison of Automated Spike Detection Software in Detecting Epileptiform Abnormalities on Scalp-EEG of Genetic Generalized Epilepsy Patients

PURPOSE

Despite availability of commercial EEG software for automated epileptiform detection, validation on real-world EEG datasets is lacking. Performance evaluation of two software packages on a large EEG dataset of patients with genetic generalized epilepsy was performed.

METHODS

Three epileptologists labelled IEDs manually of EEGs from three centres. All Interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) markings predicted by two commercial software (Encevis 1.11 and Persyst 14) were reviewed individually to assess for suspicious missed markings and were integrated into the reference standard if overlooked during manual annotation during a second phase. Sensitivity, precision, specificity, and F1-score were used to assess the performance of the software packages against the adjusted reference standard.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five routine scalp EEG recordings from different subjects were included (total recording time, 310.7 hours). The total epileptiform discharge reference count was 5,907 (including spikes and fragments). Encevis demonstrated a mean sensitivity for detection of IEDs of 0.46 (SD 0.32), mean precision of 0.37 (SD 0.31), and mean F1-score of 0.43 (SD 0.23). Using the default medium setting, the sensitivity of Persyst was 0.67 (SD 0.31), with a precision of 0.49 (SD 0.33) and F1-score of 0.51 (SD 0.25). Mean specificity representing non-IED window identification and classification was 0.973 (SD 0.08) for Encevis and 0.968 (SD 0.07) for Persyst.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated software shows a high degree of specificity for detection of nonepileptiform background. Sensitivity and precision for IED detection is lower, but may be acceptable for initial screening in the clinical and research setting. Clinical caution and continuous expert human oversight are recommended with all EEG recordings before a diagnostic interpretation is provided based on the output of the software.

Automated Seizure Detection in Patients with Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Review of Ceribell™ Rapid-EEG Recordings

BACKGROUND

In patients with cardiac arrest who remain comatose after return of spontaneous circulation, seizures and other abnormalities on electroencephalogram (EEG) are common. Thus, guidelines recommend urgent initiation of EEG for the evaluation of seizures in this population. Point-of-care EEG systems, such as Ceribell™ Rapid Response EEG (Rapid-EEG), allow for prompt initiation of EEG monitoring, albeit through a reduced-channel montage. Rapid-EEG incorporates an automated seizure detection software (Clarity™) to measure seizure burden in real time and alert clinicians at the bedside when a high seizure burden, consistent with possible status epilepticus, is identified. External validation of Clarity is still needed. Our goal was to evaluate the real-world performance of Clarity for the detection of seizures and status epilepticus in a sample of patients with cardiac arrest.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of Rapid-EEG recordings from all the patients who were admitted to the medical intensive care unit at Kent Hospital (Warwick, RI) between 6/1/2021 and 3/18/2022 for management after cardiac arrest and who underwent Rapid-EEG monitoring as part of their routine clinical care (n = 21). Board-certified epileptologists identified events that met criteria for seizures or status epilepticus, as per the 2021 American Clinical Neurophysiology Society's Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology, and evaluated any seizure burden detections generated by Clarity.

RESULTS

In this study, 4 of 21 patients with cardiac arrest (19.0%) who underwent Rapid-EEG monitoring had multiple electrographic seizures, and 2 of those patients (9.5%) had electrographic status epilepticus within the first 24 h of the study. None of these ictal abnormalities were detected by the Clarity seizure detection system. Clarity showed 0% seizure burden throughout the entirety of all four Rapid-EEG recordings, including the EEG pages that showed definite seizures or status epilepticus.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of frequent electrographic seizures and/or status epilepticus can go undetected by Clarity. Timely and careful review of all raw Rapid-EEG recordings by a qualified human EEG reader is necessary to guide clinical care, regardless of Clarity seizure burden measurements.

Automated spike and seizure detection: Are we ready for implementation?

OBJECTIVE

Automated detection of spikes and seizures has been a subject of research for several decades now. There have been important advances, yet automated detection in EMU (Epilepsy Monitoring Unit) settings has not been accepted as standard practice. We intend to implement this software at our EMU and so carried out a qualitative study to identify factors that hinder ('barriers') and facilitate ('enablers') implementation.

METHOD

Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 technicians and neurologists involved in recording and reporting EEGs and eight neurologists who receive EEG reports in the outpatient department. The study was reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ).

RESULTS

We identified 14 barriers and 14 enablers for future implementation. Most barriers were reported by technicians. The most prominent barrier was lack of trust in the software, especially regarding seizure detection and false positive results. Additionally, technicians feared losing their EEG review skills or their jobs. Most commonly reported enablers included potential efficiency in the EEG workflow, the opportunity for quantification of EEG findings and the willingness to try the software.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the perspectives of users and offers recommendations for implementing automated spike and seizure detection in EMUs.