Interpretable Machine Learning to Anticipate the Diagnostic Yield of EEG in the Emergency department. The EMINENCE study.

IF 5.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Maenia Scarpino, Ester Marra, Piergiuseppe Liuzzi, Benedetta Piccardi, Peiman Nazerian, Ilaria Sgrilli, Andrea Mannini, Andrea Nencioni, Antonello Grippo
{"title":"Interpretable Machine Learning to Anticipate the Diagnostic Yield of EEG in the Emergency department. The EMINENCE study.","authors":"Maenia Scarpino, Ester Marra, Piergiuseppe Liuzzi, Benedetta Piccardi, Peiman Nazerian, Ilaria Sgrilli, Andrea Mannini, Andrea Nencioni, Antonello Grippo","doi":"10.1007/s10916-026-02397-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Emergent electroencephalography (emEEG) is increasingly employed in the emergency department (ED) for evaluating altered consciousness and seizure-related conditions, yet standardized criteria guiding its use remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 1,018 patients (mean age 66 ± 20 years; 48.4% female) undergoing emEEG at the ED of the Careggi Teaching Hospital (Florence, Italy) in 2023. Clinical, anamnestic, and neuroimaging data available at admission were used to train supervised machine-learning (ML) models. We evaluated tree-based ensembles (Random Forest and XGBoost) to predict abnormal and epileptiform emEEG, as well as confirmation or refutation of initial diagnosis. Ground-truth labels were derived from a multidisciplinary expert team including neurologists, neurophysiopathologists and intensivists. Model performance was assessed with 5 × 5 nested cross-validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, balanced accuracy, decision-curve analysis, and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) interpretability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Abnormal emEEG occurred in 691 cases (67.9%), epileptiform activity in 192 patients (18.9%). emEEG ruled out the initial diagnostic suspicion in 514 cases (50.5%) and confirmed it in 188 cases (18.5%). Best performance was obtained with Random Forest for abnormal emEEG (AUC 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76-0.82) and diagnosis rule-out (0.84, 0.81-0.86), and with XGBoost for epileptiform emEEG (0.82, 0.78-0.85) and diagnosis confirmation (0.82, 0.79-0.85). Performance varied by initial diagnostic suspicion, but subgroup-stratified analyses showed overall consistent patterns. Key predictive features included altered consciousness, prior brain lesions, antiseizure therapy, and seizure-related presentations. Interpretability analyses revealed seizure-centric features drove confirmation, while systemic or nonspecific features favored refutation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interpretable ML models using only admission data can predict emEEG outcomes and anticipate their diagnostic contribution, supporting triage and decision-making in emergency neurology without replacing clinical judgment. Models and explanations were easily usable on a freely-accessible website ( www.emergencyeeg.com ), where tools return probabilistic outputs for all four prediction tasks together with per-patient explanation plots, enabling transparent and reproducible use.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":16338,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Systems","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13132943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-026-02397-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Emergent electroencephalography (emEEG) is increasingly employed in the emergency department (ED) for evaluating altered consciousness and seizure-related conditions, yet standardized criteria guiding its use remain limited.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1,018 patients (mean age 66 ± 20 years; 48.4% female) undergoing emEEG at the ED of the Careggi Teaching Hospital (Florence, Italy) in 2023. Clinical, anamnestic, and neuroimaging data available at admission were used to train supervised machine-learning (ML) models. We evaluated tree-based ensembles (Random Forest and XGBoost) to predict abnormal and epileptiform emEEG, as well as confirmation or refutation of initial diagnosis. Ground-truth labels were derived from a multidisciplinary expert team including neurologists, neurophysiopathologists and intensivists. Model performance was assessed with 5 × 5 nested cross-validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, balanced accuracy, decision-curve analysis, and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) interpretability.

Results: Abnormal emEEG occurred in 691 cases (67.9%), epileptiform activity in 192 patients (18.9%). emEEG ruled out the initial diagnostic suspicion in 514 cases (50.5%) and confirmed it in 188 cases (18.5%). Best performance was obtained with Random Forest for abnormal emEEG (AUC 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76-0.82) and diagnosis rule-out (0.84, 0.81-0.86), and with XGBoost for epileptiform emEEG (0.82, 0.78-0.85) and diagnosis confirmation (0.82, 0.79-0.85). Performance varied by initial diagnostic suspicion, but subgroup-stratified analyses showed overall consistent patterns. Key predictive features included altered consciousness, prior brain lesions, antiseizure therapy, and seizure-related presentations. Interpretability analyses revealed seizure-centric features drove confirmation, while systemic or nonspecific features favored refutation.

Conclusions: Interpretable ML models using only admission data can predict emEEG outcomes and anticipate their diagnostic contribution, supporting triage and decision-making in emergency neurology without replacing clinical judgment. Models and explanations were easily usable on a freely-accessible website ( www.emergencyeeg.com ), where tools return probabilistic outputs for all four prediction tasks together with per-patient explanation plots, enabling transparent and reproducible use.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

可解释的机器学习预测急诊科脑电图的诊断率。隆起研究。
紧急脑电图(emEEG)越来越多地应用于急诊科(ED)评估意识改变和癫痫相关疾病,但指导其使用的标准化标准仍然有限。方法:回顾性分析2023年在意大利佛罗伦萨Careggi教学医院急诊室接受emEEG治疗的1018例患者(平均年龄66±20岁,女性48.4%)。入院时可用的临床、记忆和神经影像学数据用于训练有监督的机器学习(ML)模型。我们评估了基于树的集合(Random Forest和XGBoost)来预测异常和癫痫样emEEG,以及对初始诊断的确认或反驳。基础真相标签来自一个多学科专家团队,包括神经科医生、神经生理病理学家和重症医师。采用5 × 5嵌套交叉验证、受试者工作特征(ROC)分析、平衡准确性、决策曲线分析和Shapley加性解释(SHAP)可解释性评估模型的性能。结果:emEEG异常691例(67.9%),癫痫样活动192例(18.9%)。emEEG排除初步诊断怀疑514例(50.5%),确诊188例(18.5%)。随机森林对异常肌电图(AUC 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76-0.82)和诊断排除(0.84,0.81-0.86)的效果最好,XGBoost对癫痫样肌电图(0.82,0.78-0.85)和诊断确认(0.82,0.79-0.85)的效果最好。表现因最初的诊断怀疑而异,但亚组分层分析显示总体模式一致。关键的预测特征包括意识改变、先前的脑部病变、抗癫痫治疗和癫痫相关的表现。可解释性分析显示,以癫痫为中心的特征驱动确认,而系统性或非特异性特征则有利于反驳。结论:仅使用入院数据的可解释ML模型可以预测emEEG结果并预测其诊断贡献,支持急诊神经病学的分诊和决策,而不会取代临床判断。模型和解释很容易在一个免费访问的网站(www.emergencyeeg.com)上使用,在那里,工具返回所有四个预测任务的概率输出以及每个患者的解释图,从而实现透明和可重复的使用。临床试验号:不适用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Systems
Journal of Medical Systems 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
83
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Systems provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of the increasingly extensive applications of new systems techniques and methods in hospital clinic and physician''s office administration; pathology radiology and pharmaceutical delivery systems; medical records storage and retrieval; and ancillary patient-support systems. The journal publishes informative articles essays and studies across the entire scale of medical systems from large hospital programs to novel small-scale medical services. Education is an integral part of this amalgamation of sciences and selected articles are published in this area. Since existing medical systems are constantly being modified to fit particular circumstances and to solve specific problems the journal includes a special section devoted to status reports on current installations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书