Expert level of detection of interictal discharges with a deep neural network.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1111/epi.18164
Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Martijn R Tannemaat, Luuk Wieske, Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar, Bas C Stunnenberg, Hanneke M Keijzer, Johannes H T M Koelman, Selma C Tromp, Ioana Dunca, Baukje J van der Star, Myrthe E de Koning, Michel J A M van Putten
{"title":"Expert level of detection of interictal discharges with a deep neural network.","authors":"Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Martijn R Tannemaat, Luuk Wieske, Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar, Bas C Stunnenberg, Hanneke M Keijzer, Johannes H T M Koelman, Selma C Tromp, Ioana Dunca, Baukje J van der Star, Myrthe E de Koning, Michel J A M van Putten","doi":"10.1111/epi.18164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Deep learning methods have shown potential in automating the detection of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) in electroencephalography (EEG). We compared IED detection using our previously trained deep neural network with a group of experts to assess its potential applicability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, we performed clinical validation on an internal data set. Seven experts reviewed all EEG studies. Performance agreement between experts and the network was compared at both the EEG and IED levels. All EEG recordings were also processed with Persyst. Subsequently, we performed external validation, with data from four centers, using a hybrid approach, where detections by the deep neural network were reviewed by an expert. In case of disagreement with the original report, the EEG recording was annotated independently by five experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For internal validation we included 22 EEG studies with IEDs and 28 EEG studies from controls. At the EEG level, our network showed performance similar to that of the experts. For individual IED detection, the sensitivities between experts ranged from 20.7%-86.4%, whereas the sensitivity of our network was 82.5% (confidence interval [CI]: 77.7%-87.4%) at 99% specificity and a false detection rate (FDR) of <.2/min, outperforming Persyst, with 64.6% sensitivity (CI: 61.4%-67.9%) at 98% specificity. External validation in 174 EEG studies demonstrated that all 85 EEG recordings classified as normal in the original report were classified correctly, with an FDR of .10/min. Of the 89 EEG studies with IEDs according to the report, 56 were correctly classified (Cohen's κ = .62). Visual analysis of the remaining 33 EEG recordings showed high interobserver variability among the five experts (Fleiss' κ = .13).</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Our deep neural network detects IEDs on par with clinical experts. The external validation in a hybrid approach showed substantial agreement with the original report. Disagreement was due mainly to high interobserver variability. Our deep neural network may support visual EEG analysis and assist in diagnostics, particularly when human resources are limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18164","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Deep learning methods have shown potential in automating the detection of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) in electroencephalography (EEG). We compared IED detection using our previously trained deep neural network with a group of experts to assess its potential applicability.

Methods: First, we performed clinical validation on an internal data set. Seven experts reviewed all EEG studies. Performance agreement between experts and the network was compared at both the EEG and IED levels. All EEG recordings were also processed with Persyst. Subsequently, we performed external validation, with data from four centers, using a hybrid approach, where detections by the deep neural network were reviewed by an expert. In case of disagreement with the original report, the EEG recording was annotated independently by five experts.

Results: For internal validation we included 22 EEG studies with IEDs and 28 EEG studies from controls. At the EEG level, our network showed performance similar to that of the experts. For individual IED detection, the sensitivities between experts ranged from 20.7%-86.4%, whereas the sensitivity of our network was 82.5% (confidence interval [CI]: 77.7%-87.4%) at 99% specificity and a false detection rate (FDR) of <.2/min, outperforming Persyst, with 64.6% sensitivity (CI: 61.4%-67.9%) at 98% specificity. External validation in 174 EEG studies demonstrated that all 85 EEG recordings classified as normal in the original report were classified correctly, with an FDR of .10/min. Of the 89 EEG studies with IEDs according to the report, 56 were correctly classified (Cohen's κ = .62). Visual analysis of the remaining 33 EEG recordings showed high interobserver variability among the five experts (Fleiss' κ = .13).

Significance: Our deep neural network detects IEDs on par with clinical experts. The external validation in a hybrid approach showed substantial agreement with the original report. Disagreement was due mainly to high interobserver variability. Our deep neural network may support visual EEG analysis and assist in diagnostics, particularly when human resources are limited.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用深度神经网络对发作间期放电进行专家级检测。
目的:深度学习方法在自动检测脑电图(EEG)中发作间期癫痫样放电(IED)方面已显示出潜力。我们比较了使用我们先前训练的深度神经网络和一组专家进行的 IED 检测,以评估其潜在的适用性:首先,我们在内部数据集上进行了临床验证。七位专家审查了所有脑电图研究。比较了专家和网络在 EEG 和 IED 水平上的性能一致性。所有脑电图记录也都用 Persyst 进行了处理。随后,我们利用来自四个中心的数据,采用混合方法进行了外部验证,由一名专家对深度神经网络的检测结果进行复核。如果与原始报告存在分歧,则由五位专家对脑电图记录进行独立注释:为了进行内部验证,我们纳入了 22 项 IED 脑电图研究和 28 项对照组脑电图研究。在脑电图层面,我们的网络显示出与专家相似的性能。对于单个 IED 的检测,专家们的灵敏度在 20.7%-86.4% 之间,而我们网络的灵敏度为 82.5%(置信区间 [CI]:77.7%-87.4%),特异性为 99%,误检率 (FDR) 为显著性:我们的深度神经网络在检测 IED 方面与临床专家不相上下。采用混合方法进行的外部验证显示,我们的结果与原始报告基本一致。不一致的主要原因是观察者之间的高变异性。我们的深度神经网络可支持视觉脑电图分析并协助诊断,尤其是在人力资源有限的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
Automatic responsiveness testing in epilepsy with wearable technology: The ARTiE Watch. WONOEP appraisal: Targeted therapy development for early onset epilepsies. Issue Information Association of cognitive and structural correlates of brain aging and incident epilepsy. The Framingham Heart Study. Epilepsia – November 2024 Announcements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1