Suppr超能文献

系统分析和比较商业癫痫发作检测软件。

Systematic analysis and comparison of commercial seizure-detection software.

机构信息

Karl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Epilepsy Research and Cognitive Neurology, Vienna, Austria.

Department of Neurology, Clinic Hietzing, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Epilepsia. 2021 Feb;62(2):426-438. doi: 10.1111/epi.16812. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine if three different commercially available seizure-detection software packages (Besa 2.0, Encevis 1.7, and Persyst 13) accurately detect seizures with high sensitivity, high specificity, and short detection delay in epilepsy patients undergoing long-term video-electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring (VEM).

METHODS

Comparison of sensitivity (detection rate), specificity (false alarm rate), and detection delay of three commercially available seizure-detection software packages in 81 randomly selected patients with epilepsy undergoing long-term VEM.

RESULTS

Detection rates on a per-patient basis were not significantly different between Besa (mean 67.6%, range 0-100%), Encevis (77.8%, 0-100%) and Persyst (81%, 0-100%; P = .059). False alarm rate (per hour) was significantly different between Besa (mean 0.7/h, range 0.01-6.2/h), Encevis (0.2/h, 0.01-0.5/h), and Persyst (0.9/h, 0.04-6.5/h; P < .001). Detection delay was significantly different between Besa (mean 30 s, range 0-431 s), Encevis (25 s, 2-163 s), and Persyst (20 s, 0-167 s; P = .007). Kappa statistics showed moderate to substantial agreement between the reference standard and each seizure-detection software (Besa: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.59; Encevis: 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.7; Persyst: 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74).

SIGNIFICANCE

Three commercially available seizure-detection software packages showed similar, reasonable sensitivities on the same data set, but differed in false alarm rates and detection delay. Persyst 13 showed the highest detection rate and false alarm rate with the shortest detection delay, whereas Encevis 1.7 had a slightly lower sensitivity, the lowest false alarm rate, and longer detection delay.

摘要

目的

在接受长期视频-脑电图(VEM)监测的癫痫患者中,确定三种不同的市售癫痫发作检测软件包(Besa 2.0、Encevis 1.7 和 Persyst 13)是否能够以高灵敏度、高特异性和短检测延迟准确检测发作。

方法

比较三种市售癫痫发作检测软件包在 81 例随机选择的接受长期 VEM 的癫痫患者中的灵敏度(检测率)、特异性(假警报率)和检测延迟。

结果

基于患者的检测率在 Besa(平均 67.6%,范围 0-100%)、Encevis(77.8%,0-100%)和 Persyst(81%,0-100%;P=0.059)之间无显著差异。假警报率(每小时)在 Besa(平均 0.7/h,范围 0.01-6.2/h)、Encevis(0.2/h,0.01-0.5/h)和 Persyst(0.9/h,0.04-6.5/h;P<0.001)之间有显著差异。检测延迟在 Besa(平均 30s,范围 0-431s)、Encevis(25s,2-163s)和 Persyst(20s,0-167s;P=0.007)之间有显著差异。Kappa 统计显示,参考标准与每种癫痫发作检测软件之间存在中度到高度一致(Besa:0.47,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.36-0.59;Encevis:0.59,95% CI 0.47-0.7;Persyst:0.63,95% CI 0.51-0.74)。

意义

三种市售癫痫发作检测软件包在同一数据集上表现出相似的、合理的敏感性,但在假警报率和检测延迟方面存在差异。Persyst 13 显示出最高的检测率和假警报率,且检测延迟最短,而 Encevis 1.7 的灵敏度略低,假警报率最低,检测延迟最长。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验