Effect of Detection Parameters on Automated Electroencephalography Spike Detection Sensitivity and False-Positive Rate

被引:10
|
作者
Hoef, Lawrence Ver [1 ,2 ]
Elgavish, Rotem [1 ,2 ]
Knowlton, Robert C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alabama, Dept Neurol, UAB Epilepsy Ctr, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[2] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, EEG Lab, Birmingham, AL USA
关键词
EEG; Spike detection; Sensitivity; False-positive rate; EPILEPTIC ACTIVITY; EEG; RECOGNITION;
D O I
10.1097/WNP.0b013e3181cb4294
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: Most seizure monitoring units use the Gotman algorithm or a variation on it for EEG spike detection, but the effect of various detection parameters on its accuracy has not been well established. The authors report sensitivities and false-positive rates for several different sets of detection parameters. Methods: Nine patients were studied. For each patient, 6 hours of EEG data were analyzed using five different sets of spike detection parameters including combinations of amplitude thresholds, state-dependent spike detection and advanced artifact rejection. Automated spike detections were compared with spikes found on visual EEG review. Results: Mean spike detection sensitivities for the different parameter sets ranged from 0.09 to 0.34. The highest sensitivity occurred with an amplitude threshold of 4, state-dependent spike detection turned on and advanced artifact rejection turned off. Mean rates of false-positives ranged from 4.2 to 48.6 per hour. The highest false-positive rate occurred with the same set of detection parameters that produced the highest sensitivity. Conclusions: The sensitivity of spike detection with the Gotman algorithm is relatively low. The data favor using a lower amplitude threshold and not using advanced artifact rejection. The false-positive rate increases with improved sensitivity, but it is still within an acceptable range for clinical application.
引用
收藏
页码:12 / 16
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Automated Brain Metastases Segmentation With a Deep Dive Into False-positive Detection
    Ziyaee, Hamidreza
    Cardenas, Carlos E.
    Yeboa, Nana
    Li, Jing
    Ferguson, Sherise D.
    Johnson, Jason
    Zhou, Zijian
    Sanders, Jeremiah
    Mumme, Raymond
    Court, Laurence
    Briere, Tina
    Yang, Jinzhong
    [J]. ADVANCES IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 8 (01)
  • [2] FALSE-POSITIVE CASES IN DETECTION OF TESTOSTERONE DOPING
    RAYNAUD, E
    AUDRAN, M
    BRUN, JF
    FEDOU, C
    CHANAL, JL
    ORSETTI, A
    [J]. LANCET, 1992, 340 (8833): : 1468 - 1469
  • [3] FALSE-POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS IN A GLAUCOMA DETECTION SURVEY
    不详
    [J]. EYE EAR NOSE AND THROAT MONTHLY, 1966, 45 (10): : 114 - &
  • [4] EFFECT OF SPIKE DETECTION PARAMETERS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPIKE DETECTION
    Hoef, Lawrence Ver
    [J]. EPILEPSIA, 2008, 49 : 26 - 26
  • [5] IMAGE FEATURE ANALYSIS OF FALSE-POSITIVE DIAGNOSES PRODUCED BY AUTOMATED DETECTION OF LUNG NODULES
    MATSUMOTO, T
    YOSHIMURA, H
    DOI, K
    GIGER, ML
    KANO, A
    MACMAHON, H
    ABE, K
    MONTNER, SM
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1992, 27 (08) : 587 - 597
  • [6] The Role of Atmospheric Exchange in False-Positive Biosignature Detection
    Felton, Ryan C.
    Bastelberger, Sandra T.
    Mandt, Kathleen E.
    Luspay-Kuti, Adrienn
    Fauchez, Thomas J.
    Domagal-Goldman, Shawn D.
    [J]. arXiv, 2022,
  • [7] Robust shape estimation with false-positive contact detection
    Shibata, Kazuki
    Miyano, Tatsuya
    Jimbo, Tomohiko
    Matsubara, Takamitsu
    [J]. ROBOTICS AND AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, 2020, 129
  • [8] The Role of Atmospheric Exchange in False-Positive Biosignature Detection
    Felton, Ryan C.
    Bastelberger, Sandra T.
    Mandt, Kathleen E.
    Luspay-Kuti, Adrienn
    Fauchez, Thomas J.
    Domagal-Goldman, Shawn D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS, 2022, 127 (03)
  • [9] MINIMIZING FALSE-POSITIVE ERRORS IN HORMONAL PULSE DETECTION
    VELDHUIS, JD
    ROGOL, AD
    JOHNSON, ML
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY, 1985, 248 (04): : E475 - E481
  • [10] FALSE-POSITIVE HEME DETECTION DUE TO POVIDONE IODINE
    BAROR, D
    MARK, JA
    [J]. LANCET, 1981, 2 (8246): : 589 - 589