IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1111/epi.18309
Ashley Reynolds, Rachel E Stirling, Samuel Håkansson, Philippa Karoly, Alan Lai, David B Grayden, Mark J Cook, Ewan S Nurse, Andre Peterson
{"title":"Evaluating the accuracy of monitoring seizure cycles with seizure diaries.","authors":"Ashley Reynolds, Rachel E Stirling, Samuel Håkansson, Philippa Karoly, Alan Lai, David B Grayden, Mark J Cook, Ewan S Nurse, Andre Peterson","doi":"10.1111/epi.18309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epileptic seizures occurring in cyclical patterns is increasingly recognized as a significant opportunity to advance epilepsy management. Current methods for detecting seizure cycles rely on intrusive techniques or specialized biomarkers, thereby limiting their accessibility. This study evaluates a non-invasive seizure cycle detection method using seizure diaries and compares its accuracy with cycles identified from intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) seizures and interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from a previously published first in-human iEEG device trial (n = 10), we analyzed seizure cycles identified through diary reports, iEEG seizures, and IEDs. Cycle similarities across diary reports, iEEG seizures, and IEDs were evaluated at periods of 1 to 45 days using spectral coherence, accuracy, precision, recall, and the false-positive rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A spectral coherence analysis of the raw signals showed moderately similar periodic components between diary seizures/day and iEEG seizures/day (median = .43, IQR = .68). In contrast, there was low coherence between diary seizures/day and IEDs/day (median = .11, IQR = .18) and iEEG seizures/day and IEDs/day (median = .12, IQR = .19). Accuracy, precision, recall scores, and false-positive rates of iEEG seizure cycles from diary seizure cycles were significantly higher than chance across all participants (accuracy (mean ± standard deviation): .95 ± .02; precision: .56 ± .19; recall: .56 ± .19; false-positive rate: .02 ± .01). However, accuracy, precision, and recall scores of IED cycles from both diary and iEEG cycles did not perform above chance, on average. Recall scores were compared across good diary reporters, under-reporters, and over-reporters, with recall scores generally performing better in good reporters and under-reporters compared to over-reporters.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>These findings suggest that iEEG seizure cycles can be identified with diary reports, even in individuals who under- and over-report seizures. This approach offers an accessible alternative for monitoring seizure cycles compared to more invasive methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","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.18309","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

摘要

目的:越来越多的人认识到,癫痫周期性发作是促进癫痫治疗的一个重要机会。目前检测癫痫周期的方法依赖于侵入性技术或专门的生物标志物,因此限制了其可及性。本研究评估了一种使用发作日记的非侵入性发作周期检测方法,并将其准确性与通过颅内脑电图(iEEG)发作和发作间期癫痫样放电(IEDs)确定的周期进行了比较:利用之前发表的首次人体 iEEG 设备试验(n = 10)的数据,我们分析了通过日记报告、iEEG 癫痫发作和 IED 确定的癫痫发作周期。我们使用频谱相干性、准确性、精确性、召回率和假阳性率评估了日记报告、iEEG 癫痫发作和 IED 在 1 到 45 天期间的周期相似性:原始信号的频谱一致性分析表明,日记癫痫发作/天和 iEEG 癫痫发作/天之间的周期性成分非常相似(中位数 = .43,IQR = .68)。相比之下,日记发作/天和 IEDs/天(中位数 = 0.11,IQR = 0.18)以及 iEEG 发作/天和 IEDs/天(中位数 = 0.12,IQR = 0.19)之间的一致性较低。所有参与者的 iEEG 癫痫发作周期与日记发作周期的准确度、精确度、回忆分数和假阳性率均显著高于偶然性(准确度(平均值 ± 标准差):.95 ± .02;精确度:.95 ± .02;假阳性率:.95 ± .02):.95 ± .02;精确度:.56 ± .19;回忆分数:.56 ± .19;假阳性率:.02 ± .01)。然而,从日记和 iEEG 循环中得出的 IED 循环的准确度、精确度和召回分数的平均值并未超过偶然性。对良好的日记报告者、报告不足者和过度报告者的召回分数进行了比较,良好的报告者和报告不足者的召回分数普遍高于过度报告者:这些研究结果表明,通过日记报告可以识别 iEEG 癫痫发作周期,即使是对癫痫发作报告不足和报告过多的人也是如此。与侵入性较强的方法相比,这种方法为监测癫痫发作周期提供了一种便捷的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the accuracy of monitoring seizure cycles with seizure diaries.

Objective: Epileptic seizures occurring in cyclical patterns is increasingly recognized as a significant opportunity to advance epilepsy management. Current methods for detecting seizure cycles rely on intrusive techniques or specialized biomarkers, thereby limiting their accessibility. This study evaluates a non-invasive seizure cycle detection method using seizure diaries and compares its accuracy with cycles identified from intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) seizures and interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs).

Methods: Using data from a previously published first in-human iEEG device trial (n = 10), we analyzed seizure cycles identified through diary reports, iEEG seizures, and IEDs. Cycle similarities across diary reports, iEEG seizures, and IEDs were evaluated at periods of 1 to 45 days using spectral coherence, accuracy, precision, recall, and the false-positive rate.

Results: A spectral coherence analysis of the raw signals showed moderately similar periodic components between diary seizures/day and iEEG seizures/day (median = .43, IQR = .68). In contrast, there was low coherence between diary seizures/day and IEDs/day (median = .11, IQR = .18) and iEEG seizures/day and IEDs/day (median = .12, IQR = .19). Accuracy, precision, recall scores, and false-positive rates of iEEG seizure cycles from diary seizure cycles were significantly higher than chance across all participants (accuracy (mean ± standard deviation): .95 ± .02; precision: .56 ± .19; recall: .56 ± .19; false-positive rate: .02 ± .01). However, accuracy, precision, and recall scores of IED cycles from both diary and iEEG cycles did not perform above chance, on average. Recall scores were compared across good diary reporters, under-reporters, and over-reporters, with recall scores generally performing better in good reporters and under-reporters compared to over-reporters.

Significance: These findings suggest that iEEG seizure cycles can be identified with diary reports, even in individuals who under- and over-report seizures. This approach offers an accessible alternative for monitoring seizure cycles compared to more invasive methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信