Search

Objective: Unstructured data present in electronic health records (EHR) are a rich source of medical information; however, their abstraction is labor intensive. Automated EHR phenotyping (AEP) can reduce the need for manual chart review. We present an AEP model that is designed to automatically identify patients diagnosed with epilepsy., Methods: The ground truth for model training and evaluation was captured from a combination of structured questionnaires filled out by physicians for a subset of patients and manual chart review using customized software. Modeling features included indicators of the presence of keywords and phrases in unstructured clinical notes, prescriptions for antiseizure medications (ASMs), International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for seizures and epilepsy, number of ASMs and epilepsy-related ICD codes, age, and sex. Data were randomly divided into training (70%) and hold-out testing (30%) sets, with distinct patients in each set. We trained regularized logistic regression and an extreme gradient boosting models. Model performance was measured using area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated via bootstrapping., Results: Our study cohort included 3903 adults drawn from outpatient departments of nine hospitals between February 2015 and June 2022 (mean age = 47 ± 18 years, 57% women, 82% White, 84% non-Hispanic, 70% with epilepsy). The final models included 285 features, including 246 keywords and phrases captured from 8415 encounters. Both models achieved AUROC and AUPRC of 1 (95% CI = .99-1.00) in the hold-out testing set., Significance: A machine learning-based AEP approach accurately identifies patients with epilepsy from notes, ICD codes, and ASMs. This model can enable large-scale epilepsy research using EHR databases., (© 2023 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background and Objectives: Seizures (SZs) and other SZ-like patterns of brain activity can harm the brain and contribute to in-hospital death, particularly when prolonged. However, experts qualified to interpret EEG data are scarce. Prior attempts to automate this task have been limited by small or inadequately labeled samples and have not convincingly demonstrated generalizable expert-level performance. There exists a critical unmet need for an automated method to classify SZs and other SZ-like events with expert-level reliability. This study was conducted to develop and validate a computer algorithm that matches the reliability and accuracy of experts in identifying SZs and SZ-like events, known as "ictal-interictal-injury continuum" (IIIC) patterns on EEG, including SZs, lateralized and generalized periodic discharges (LPD, GPD), and lateralized and generalized rhythmic delta activity (LRDA, GRDA), and in differentiating these patterns from non-IIIC patterns., Methods: We used 6,095 scalp EEGs from 2,711 patients with and without IIIC events to train a deep neural network, SPaRCNet , to perform IIIC event classification. Independent training and test data sets were generated from 50,697 EEG segments, independently annotated by 20 fellowship-trained neurophysiologists. We assessed whether SPaRCNet performs at or above the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and calibration of fellowship-trained neurophysiologists for identifying IIIC events. Statistical performance was assessed by the calibration index and by the percentage of experts whose operating points were below the model's receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) and precision recall curves (PRCs) for the 6 pattern classes., Results: SPaRCNet matches or exceeds most experts in classifying IIIC events based on both calibration and discrimination metrics. For SZ, LPD, GPD, LRDA, GRDA, and "other" classes, SPaRCNet exceeds the following percentages of 20 experts-ROC: 45%, 20%, 50%, 75%, 55%, and 40%; PRC: 50%, 35%, 50%, 90%, 70%, and 45%; and calibration: 95%, 100%, 95%, 100%, 100%, and 80%, respectively., Discussion: SPaRCNet is the first algorithm to match expert performance in detecting SZs and other SZ-like events in a representative sample of EEGs. With further development, SPaRCNet may thus be a valuable tool for an expedited review of EEGs., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that among patients with epilepsy or critical illness undergoing EEG monitoring, SPaRCNet can differentiate (IIIC) patterns from non-IIIC events and expert neurophysiologists., (© 2023 American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: Interictal epileptiform discharges on EEG are integral to diagnosing epilepsy. However, EEGs are interpreted by readers with and without specialty training, and there is no accepted method to assess skill in interpretation. We aimed to develop a test to quantify IED recognition skills., Methods: A total of 13,262 candidate IEDs were selected from EEGs and scored by eight fellowship-trained reviewers to establish a gold standard. An online test was developed to assess how well readers with different training levels could distinguish candidate waveforms. Sensitivity, false positive rate and calibration were calculated for each reader. A simple mathematical model was developed to estimate each reader's skill and threshold in identifying an IED, and to develop receiver operating characteristics curves for each reader. We investigated the number of IEDs needed to measure skill level with acceptable precision., Results: Twenty-nine raters completed the test; nine experts, seven experienced non-experts and thirteen novices. Median calibration errors for experts, experienced non-experts and novices were -0.056, 0.012, 0.046; median sensitivities were 0.800, 0.811, 0.715; and median false positive rates were 0.177, 0.272, 0.396, respectively. The number of test questions needed to measure those scores was 549. Our analysis identified that novices had a higher noise level (uncertainty) compared to experienced non-experts and experts. Using calculated noise and threshold levels, receiver operating curves were created, showing increasing median area under the curve from novices (0.735), to experienced non-experts (0.852) and experts (0.891)., Significance: Expert and non-expert readers can be distinguished based on ability to identify IEDs. This type of assessment could also be used to identify and correct differences in thresholds in identifying IEDs.

Importance: Interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) in electroencephalograms (EEGs) are a biomarker of epilepsy, seizure risk, and clinical decline. However, there is a scarcity of experts qualified to interpret EEG results. Prior attempts to automate IED detection have been limited by small samples and have not demonstrated expert-level performance. There is a need for a validated automated method to detect IEDs with expert-level reliability., Objective: To develop and validate a computer algorithm with the ability to identify IEDs as reliably as experts and classify an EEG recording as containing IEDs vs no IEDs., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 9571 scalp EEG records with and without IEDs were used to train a deep neural network (SpikeNet) to perform IED detection. Independent training and testing data sets were generated from 13 262 IED candidates, independently annotated by 8 fellowship-trained clinical neurophysiologists, and 8520 EEG records containing no IEDs based on clinical EEG reports. Using the estimated spike probability, a classifier designating the whole EEG recording as positive or negative was also built., Main Outcomes and Measures: SpikeNet accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with fellowship-trained neurophysiology experts for identifying IEDs and classifying EEGs as positive or negative or negative for IEDs. Statistical performance was assessed via calibration error and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). All performance statistics were estimated using 10-fold cross-validation., Results: SpikeNet surpassed both expert interpretation and an industry standard commercial IED detector, based on calibration error (SpikeNet, 0.041; 95% CI, 0.033-0.049; vs industry standard, 0.066; 95% CI, 0.060-0.078; vs experts, mean, 0.183; range, 0.081-0.364) and binary classification performance based on AUC (SpikeNet, 0.980; 95% CI, 0.977-0.984; vs industry standard, 0.882; 95% CI, 0.872-0.893). Whole EEG classification had a mean calibration error of 0.126 (range, 0.109-0.1444) vs experts (mean, 0.197; range, 0.099-0.372) and AUC of 0.847 (95% CI, 0.830-0.865)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, SpikeNet automatically detected IEDs and classified whole EEGs as IED-positive or IED-negative. This may be the first time an algorithm has been shown to exceed expert performance for IED detection in a representative sample of EEGs and may thus be a valuable tool for expedited review of EEGs.

Importance: The validity of using electroencephalograms (EEGs) to diagnose epilepsy requires reliable detection of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs). Prior interrater reliability (IRR) studies are limited by small samples and selection bias., Objective: To assess the reliability of experts in detecting IEDs in routine EEGs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective analysis conducted in 2 phases included as participants physicians with at least 1 year of subspecialty training in clinical neurophysiology. In phase 1, 9 experts independently identified candidate IEDs in 991 EEGs (1 expert per EEG) reported in the medical record to contain at least 1 IED, yielding 87 636 candidate IEDs. In phase 2, the candidate IEDs were clustered into groups with distinct morphological features, yielding 12 602 clusters, and a representative candidate IED was selected from each cluster. We added 660 waveforms (11 random samples each from 60 randomly selected EEGs reported as being free of IEDs) as negative controls. Eight experts independently scored all 13 262 candidates as IEDs or non-IEDs. The 1051 EEGs in the study were recorded at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2012 and 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures were percentage of agreement (PA) and beyond-chance agreement (Gwet κ) for individual IEDs (IED-wise IRR) and for whether an EEG contained any IEDs (EEG-wise IRR). Secondary outcomes were the correlations between numbers of IEDs marked by experts across cases, calibration of expert scoring to group consensus, and receiver operating characteristic analysis of how well multivariate logistic regression models may account for differences in the IED scoring behavior between experts., Results: Among the 1051 EEGs assessed in the study, 540 (51.4%) were those of females and 511 (48.6%) were those of males. In phase 1, 9 experts each marked potential IEDs in a median of 65 (interquartile range [IQR], 28-332) EEGs. The total number of IED candidates marked was 87 636. Expert IRR for the 13 262 individually annotated IED candidates was fair, with the mean PA being 72.4% (95% CI, 67.0%-77.8%) and mean κ being 48.7% (95% CI, 37.3%-60.1%). The EEG-wise IRR was substantial, with the mean PA being 80.9% (95% CI, 76.2%-85.7%) and mean κ being 69.4% (95% CI, 60.3%-78.5%). A statistical model based on waveform morphological features, when provided with individualized thresholds, explained the median binary scores of all experts with a high degree of accuracy of 80% (range, 73%-88%)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that experts can identify whether EEGs contain IEDs with substantial reliability. Lower reliability regarding individual IEDs may be largely explained by various experts applying different thresholds to a common underlying statistical model.