Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Current Opinion in Neurology Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1097/WCO.0000000000001344
Joshua C Cheng, Daniel M Goldenholz
{"title":"Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.","authors":"Joshua C Cheng, Daniel M Goldenholz","doi":"10.1097/WCO.0000000000001344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This scoping review summarizes key developments in the field of seizure forecasting.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Developments have been made along several modalities of seizure forecasting, including long term intracranial and subcutaneous encephalogram, wearable physiologic monitoring, and seizure diaries. However, clinical translation of these tools is limited by various factors. One is the lack of validation of these tools on an external dataset. Moreover, the widespread practice of comparing models to a chance forecaster may be inadequate. Instead, the model should be able to at least surpass a moving average forecaster, which serves as a 'napkin test' (i.e., can be computed on the back of a napkin). The impact of seizure frequency on model performance should also be accounted for when comparing performance across studies. Surprisingly, despite the potential for poor quality forecasts, some individuals with epilepsy still want access to imprecise forecasts and some even alter their behavior based upon them.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Promising advances have been made in the development of tools for seizure forecasting, but current tools have not yet overcome clinical translation hurdles. Future studies will need to address potentially dangerous patient behaviors as well as account for external validation, the napkin test, seizure frequency dependent metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":11059,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Neurology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000001344","RegionNum":2,"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

Purpose of review: This scoping review summarizes key developments in the field of seizure forecasting.

Recent findings: Developments have been made along several modalities of seizure forecasting, including long term intracranial and subcutaneous encephalogram, wearable physiologic monitoring, and seizure diaries. However, clinical translation of these tools is limited by various factors. One is the lack of validation of these tools on an external dataset. Moreover, the widespread practice of comparing models to a chance forecaster may be inadequate. Instead, the model should be able to at least surpass a moving average forecaster, which serves as a 'napkin test' (i.e., can be computed on the back of a napkin). The impact of seizure frequency on model performance should also be accounted for when comparing performance across studies. Surprisingly, despite the potential for poor quality forecasts, some individuals with epilepsy still want access to imprecise forecasts and some even alter their behavior based upon them.

Summary: Promising advances have been made in the development of tools for seizure forecasting, but current tools have not yet overcome clinical translation hurdles. Future studies will need to address potentially dangerous patient behaviors as well as account for external validation, the napkin test, seizure frequency dependent metrics.

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
癫痫发作预测与预报:范围综述。
综述目的:本文综述了癫痫发作预测领域的主要进展。最近发现:癫痫发作预测的几种模式已经取得了进展,包括长期颅内和皮下脑电图、可穿戴生理监测和癫痫发作日记。然而,这些工具的临床翻译受到各种因素的限制。一个是缺乏在外部数据集上对这些工具的验证。此外,将模型与随机预测者进行比较的普遍做法可能是不充分的。相反,该模型至少应该能够超越移动平均预测器,这可以作为“餐巾纸测试”(即,可以在餐巾纸背面计算)。在比较不同研究的性能时,也应该考虑癫痫发作频率对模型性能的影响。令人惊讶的是,尽管预测的质量可能很差,但一些癫痫患者仍然希望获得不精确的预测,有些人甚至根据这些预测改变自己的行为。总结:在癫痫发作预测工具的开发方面取得了有希望的进展,但目前的工具尚未克服临床翻译障碍。未来的研究将需要解决潜在的危险患者行为,以及考虑外部验证,餐巾测试,癫痫发作频率依赖的指标。
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
Current Opinion in Neurology
Current Opinion in Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Neurology is a highly regarded journal offering insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews; covering key subjects such as cerebrovascular disease, developmental disorders, neuroimaging and demyelinating diseases. Published bimonthly, each issue of Current Opinion in Neurology introduces world renowned guest editors and internationally recognized academics within the neurology field, delivering a widespread selection of expert assessments on the latest developments from the most recent literature.
期刊最新文献
Gauging and controlling excitability in cortical disorders. Neuroinflammation and immunometabolism in neurodegenerative diseases. Epilepsy in low- to middle-income countries. SEEG in 2025: progress and pending challenges in stereotaxy methods, biomarkers and radiofrequency thermocoagulation. Mental health and psychological processes associated with cognitive aging and dementia.
×
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