Seizure Detection in Continuous Inpatient EEG
A Comparison of Human vs Automated Review
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives The aim of this work was to test the accuracy of Persyst commercially available automated seizure detection in critical care EEG by comparing automated seizure detections to human review in a manually reviewed cohort and on a large scale.
Methods Automated seizure detections (Persyst versions 12 and 13) were compared to human review in a pilot cohort of 229 seizures from 85 EEG records and then in an expanded cohort of 7,924 EEG records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for individual seizures (pilot cohort) and for entire records (pilot and expanded cohorts). We assessed EEG features associated with the accuracy of automated seizure detections.
Results In the pilot cohort, accuracy of automated detection for individual seizures was modest (sensitivity 0.50, PPV 0.60). At the record level (did the recording contain seizures or not?), sensitivity was higher (pilot cohort 0.78, expanded cohort 0.91), PPV was low (pilot cohort 0.40, expanded cohort 0.08), and NPV was high (pilot cohort 0.88, expanded cohort 0.97). Different software versions (version 12 vs 13) performed similarly. Sensitivity was higher for records containing focal-onset seizures compared to generalized-onset seizures (0.93 vs 0.85, p = 0.012).
Discussion In critical care continuous EEG recordings, automated detection of individual seizures had rates of both false negatives and false positives that bring into question its utility as a seizure alarm in clinical practice. At the level of entire EEG records, the absence of automated detections accurately predicted EEG records without true seizures. The true value of Persyst automated seizure detection appears to lie in triaging of low-risk EEGs.
Classification of Evidence This study provides Class II evidence that an automated seizure detection program cannot accurately identify EEG records that contain seizures.
Glossary
- cEEG=
- continuous long-term EEG;
- EMU=
- epilepsy monitoring units;
- GEE=
- generalized estimating equation;
- ICU=
- intensive care unit;
- NPV=
- negative predictive value;
- PPV=
- positive predictive value
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Class of Evidence: NPub.org/coe
- Received April 11, 2021.
- Accepted in final form February 8, 2022.
- © 2022 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. David E. Vaillancourt and Dr. Shannon Y. Chiu