Skip to content

Validation of Criteria for Identification of Epileptiform Discharges in EEG Recordings of Patients With Epilepsy

Clinical Validation of Criteria for Identification of Epileptiform Electroencephalography Discharges in Sensor Space and Source Space

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03533374
Acronym
CIED
Enrollment
100
Registered
2018-05-23
Start date
2012-01-01
Completion date
2018-01-01
Last updated
2020-07-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Epilepsy, Non-Epileptic Seizure

Keywords

Accuracy, Inter-ictal EEG Discharges, Inter-rater agreement, Long Term Monitoring, Sensitivity, Sharp transients, Specificity, Source Space, Voltage maps

Brief summary

Electroencephalography (EEG) records electric activity of the brain using electrodes placed on the scalp. EEG is an important tool in the diagnostic work-up of patients with epilepsy. Specific types of sharp EEG discharges (epileptiform discharges) are associated with patients with epilepsy. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) has recently published a set of six operational criteria for identifying epileptiform discharges. At least four criteria need to be present in order to classify a discharge as epileptiform. These criteria are largely based on expert opinion and have not been validated yet. It is not clear what the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria are, and which combination of these criteria are optimal. Each criterion is based on visual assessment. However, it is not known what the inter-rater agreement of these criteria are. EEG is traditionally inspected in sensor space, i.e. in the recording channels. Advances in signal analysis made possible reconstructing the electric currents in the regions of the brain generating them, and displaying the signals in the source space, instead of the sensor space. The objectives of this study are: to determine the inter-rater agreement of the IFCN criteria by visual analysis in sensor space, to determine the combination of criteria with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and assess the accuracy of evaluating the discharges in source space. The raters will analyze EEG recordings from 100 patients, from two groups: consecutive patients with epilepsy and consecutive patients with non-epileptic paroxysmal episodes. EEG was recorded during long-term video-EEG monitoring. As reference standard, the investigators used the evaluation of the patients´ habitual clinical episode. The performance of the criteria in sensor-space and the analysis in source space will be compared with the unrestricted expert scorings.

Detailed description

Epilepsy affects 50 million people of all ages. It is the most common neurologic disorder across the lifespan, and has been found to be associated with an increased risk of mortality compared to the general population. EEG is an important tool in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected epilepsy. The presence of epileptiform EEG discharges (EDs) confirm the diagnosis and provides important information that helps in classifying epilepsy. EDs are visually identified by experts with training in reading EEG. Although EDs were defined in the previous edition of the IFCN glossary of terms, that definition was conceptual, and the inter-rater agreement for identifying EDs was only moderate. Recently, the IFCN suggested the following operational definition for EDs: Transients distinguishable from background activity with a characteristic morphology; EDs have to fulfill at least 4 of the following 6 criteria: 1. Di- or tri-phasic waves with sharp or spiky morphology (i.e. pointed peak). 2. Different wave-duration than the ongoing background activity: either shorter or longer. 3. Asymmetry of the waveform: a sharply rising ascending phase and a more slowly decaying descending phase, or vice versa. 4. The transient is followed by an associated slow after-wave. 5. The background activity surrounding epileptiform discharges is disrupted by the presence of the epileptiform discharges. 6. Distribution of the negative and positive potentials on the scalp suggests a source of the signal in the brain, corresponding to a radial, oblique or tangential orientation of the source. This is best assessed by inspecting voltage maps constructed using common-average reference. However, these criteria are largely based on expert opinion. Data from clinical validation studies are lacking, thus it is not known what the sensitivity and specificity of these methods are. The threshold of four fulfilled criteria was arbitrary, and it is not sure whether it yields the optimal accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Furthermore, since each criterion is based on visual evaluation, it is not known whether all experts would reach the same conclusion. The IFCN criteria were developed for identifying EDs using the traditional way of inspecting EEG, in the channels of the recording electrodes (sensor space). However, advances in signal analysis made possible to reproduce the electric currents in the brain regions, using a spatial filtering method (source space). The objective of this study are: 1. To determine the inter-rater agreement for the IFCN criteria 2. To determine the number of criteria and their combination that yields the highest diagnostic accuracy 3. To determine the accuracy of identifying EDs in source space. Raters with experience in clinical EEG will inspect 100 anonymized EEG samples, from consecutive patients with epilepsy and consecutive patients with non-epileptic paroxysmal episodes. All 100 patients have a reference standard for their condition, derived from analysis of their video-EEG recordings of their habitual clinical episode. Patients with both focal and generalized epilepsy, as well as non-epileptic paroxysmal episodes (psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, sleep-disorders, movement disorders, convulsive syncope) are included. Each EEG sample contains a sharp transient that is either epileptiform or not. EEGs were recoded using the IFCN electrode array of 25 electrodes (including the ones in the inferior temporal chain). The samples were randomized twice, resulting in two series containing the same set of 100 samples, though with different codes and in different order of presentation. The raters will inspect the two series separately. In the first session the raters will inspect samples in sensor space, using traditional EEG montages (longitudinal and transversal bipolar; common average) and voltage maps. For each sample, they will score the presence or absence of each IFCN criterion. In the second session, the raters will inspect the EEG samples in source space and voltage maps, and will conclude on the presence / absence of EDs. The performance of these methods will be compared with unrestricted scorings based on the experts´ evaluation.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTElectroencephalogram (EEG) and visual evaluation

Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded using Nicolet-One system, and the standard 25-electrode array. Recordings with sharp transients are inspected by experts (physicians).

Sponsors

Aarhus University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Central Denmark Region
CollaboratorOTHER
Filadelfia Epilepsy Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
University Health Network, Toronto
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital Erlangen
CollaboratorOTHER
Oslo University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Sándor Beniczky
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Patients who underwent long-term video-EEG monitoring 2. Patients who had at least one habitual episode (seizure) recorded on video and EEG. 3. Patients with sharp transients. 4. For patients with epilepsy: the interictal (epileptiform) sharp transients are concordant with the ictal recording

Exclusion criteria

Patients with both epileptic seizures and non-epileptic seizures (paroxysmal episodes).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Inter-rater Agreement of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) Criteria (Cut-off=4) in Sensor Space and of Detection of Epileptiform Discharges (EDs) in Source Space1 yearInter-rater agreement of IFCN criteria (cut-off=4) in sensor space and of detection of EDs in source space was calculated using Gwet´s Agreemen Coefficient (AC1). We calculated Gwet's coefficients of agreement AC1 for beyond chance agreement, because, compared with Cohen's Kappa, the Gwet's agreement coefficient is less affected by prevalence and marginal probability and thereby avoids the problem known as the paradoxes of kappa. Strength of agreement beyond chance was interpreted according to Landis and Koch criteria: poor (\<0), slight (0·01-0·20), fair (0·21-0·40), moderate (0·41-0·60), substantial (0·61-0·80), and almost perfect (0·81-1·00).
Sensitivity and Specificity IFCN Criteria (Cut-off=4)1 yearThis is a diagnostic study, hence sensitivity and specificity must be calculated from different groups: sensitivity form the group of patients with epilepsy and specificity from the gruoup of patients who do not have epilepsy. Sensitivity: the percentage of patients with abnormal index test (true positives) among patients with epilepsy. Specificity: the percentage of patients with normal index test (true negatives) among patients who do not have epilepsy.
The Sensitivity and Specificity of Detecting EDs in Source-space1 yearThis is a diagnostic study, hence sensitivity and specificity must be calculated from different groups: sensitivity form the group of patients with epilepsy and specificity from the group of patients who do not have epilepsy. Sensitivity: the percentage of patients with abnormal index test (true positives) among patients with epilepsy. Specificity: the percentage of patients with normal index test (true negatives) among patients who do not have epilepsy.

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Patients With Epileptic Seizures
Electroencephalogram (EEG) and visual evaluation \- Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded using Nicolet-One system, and the standard 25-electrode array. Recordings with sharp transients are inspected by experts (physicians). Electroencephalogram (EEG) and visual evaluation: Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded using Nicolet-One system, and the standard 25-electrode array. Recordings with sharp transients are inspected by experts (physicians).
54
Patients With Non-epileptic Seizures
Electroencephalogram (EEG) and visual evaluation \- Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded using Nicolet-One system, and the standard 25-electrode array. Recordings with sharp transients are inspected by experts (physicians). Electroencephalogram (EEG) and visual evaluation: Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded using Nicolet-One system, and the standard 25-electrode array. Recordings with sharp transients are inspected by experts (physicians).
46
Total100

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPatients With Non-epileptic SeizuresTotalPatients With Epileptic Seizures
Age, Continuous37.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.7
34.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.3
32.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.9
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
46 Participants100 Participants54 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
35 Participants60 Participants25 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
11 Participants40 Participants29 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 00 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 00 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

Inter-rater Agreement of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) Criteria (Cut-off=4) in Sensor Space and of Detection of Epileptiform Discharges (EDs) in Source Space

Inter-rater agreement of IFCN criteria (cut-off=4) in sensor space and of detection of EDs in source space was calculated using Gwet´s Agreemen Coefficient (AC1). We calculated Gwet's coefficients of agreement AC1 for beyond chance agreement, because, compared with Cohen's Kappa, the Gwet's agreement coefficient is less affected by prevalence and marginal probability and thereby avoids the problem known as the paradoxes of kappa. Strength of agreement beyond chance was interpreted according to Landis and Koch criteria: poor (\<0), slight (0·01-0·20), fair (0·21-0·40), moderate (0·41-0·60), substantial (0·61-0·80), and almost perfect (0·81-1·00).

Time frame: 1 year

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Patients With Epileptic SeizuresInter-rater Agreement of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) Criteria (Cut-off=4) in Sensor Space and of Detection of Epileptiform Discharges (EDs) in Source Space0.61 AC1 - agreement coefficient
Patients With Non-epileptic SeizuresInter-rater Agreement of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) Criteria (Cut-off=4) in Sensor Space and of Detection of Epileptiform Discharges (EDs) in Source Space0.59 AC1 - agreement coefficient
Primary

Sensitivity and Specificity IFCN Criteria (Cut-off=4)

This is a diagnostic study, hence sensitivity and specificity must be calculated from different groups: sensitivity form the group of patients with epilepsy and specificity from the gruoup of patients who do not have epilepsy. Sensitivity: the percentage of patients with abnormal index test (true positives) among patients with epilepsy. Specificity: the percentage of patients with normal index test (true negatives) among patients who do not have epilepsy.

Time frame: 1 year

Population: Sensitivity is calculated in the epileptic group and specificity in the non-epileptic group.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Patients With Epileptic SeizuresSensitivity and Specificity IFCN Criteria (Cut-off=4)96.3 percentage
Patients With Non-epileptic SeizuresSensitivity and Specificity IFCN Criteria (Cut-off=4)84.8 percentage
Primary

The Sensitivity and Specificity of Detecting EDs in Source-space

This is a diagnostic study, hence sensitivity and specificity must be calculated from different groups: sensitivity form the group of patients with epilepsy and specificity from the group of patients who do not have epilepsy. Sensitivity: the percentage of patients with abnormal index test (true positives) among patients with epilepsy. Specificity: the percentage of patients with normal index test (true negatives) among patients who do not have epilepsy.

Time frame: 1 year

Population: Sensitivity is calculated in the epileptic group and specificity in the non-epileptic group.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Patients With Epileptic SeizuresThe Sensitivity and Specificity of Detecting EDs in Source-space85.2 percentage
Patients With Non-epileptic SeizuresThe Sensitivity and Specificity of Detecting EDs in Source-space95.7 percentage

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026