Key result
The automated EEG spike detection software P15 detected interictal epileptiform discharges with 81.1% sensitivity and 96.3% negative predictive value, but had a low positive predictive value of 19.9%.
Why the study?
Previous machine learning evaluations for detecting interictal epileptiform discharges primarily used small datasets of pre-selected records not representative of clinical practice.
Does the automated machine learning model Persyst P15 accurately detect interictal epileptiform discharges in routine clinical EEGs compared to expert clinical reports?
Observational (n=484)
No
Does the automated machine learning model Persyst P15 accurately detect interictal epileptiform discharges in routine clinical EEGs compared to expert clinical reports?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 81.1% (95% CI 77.6-84.6)
The Persyst P15 machine learning model demonstrated a high negative predictive value (96.3%) for ruling out IEDs in routine EEGs, but its low positive predictive value (19.9%) indicates a high rate of false positives, limiting its standalone clinical utility.
Background Interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) are transient spikes or waves that occur in electroencephalography (EEG) records and can help support the diagnosis and classification of epilepsy. High-throughput machine learning models aim to automate the detection of IEDs. Previous evaluations of machine learning models have reported non-inferiority compared to human experts, but these studies predominantly use small datasets of pre-selected, ‘IED rich’ records, which are not representative of clinical practice. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the accuracy of machine learning models in a large, routine, clinically representative cohort. Methods All routine EEGs performed in a large regional hospital in England were identified between June 2024 and February 2025. EEG records were run through the commercial machine learning model P15 and automated IED reports generated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of P15-detected IEDs were evaluated using the final clinical report as a reference standard. Results Of 484 EEG records, 53 were reported to contain at least one IED in the final clinical report. At P15’s default sensitivity setting, sensitivity for IED detection was 81.1% (95% CI:77.6–84.6), specificity 59.9% (95% CI: 55.5–64.2), positive predictive value 19.9% (95% CI:16.3–23.5) and negative predictive value 96.3% (95% CI:94.6–98.0). Discussion This large-scale study of a machine learning model for identification of IEDs in a representative clinical population found a high negative predictive value suggesting that this may be a useful tool to rule out IEDs. However, the low positive predictive value demonstrates the potential for over-calling IEDs in routine EEGs. Future research should evaluate machine learning models alongside clinical feedback before this approach can have sufficient utility in direct clinical care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cook et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Interictal epileptiform discharges (n=484). Automated EEG spike detection software (P15) vs. Final clinical report (reference standard) was evaluated on Sensitivity for IED detection (Sensitivity 81.1%, 95% CI 77.6-84.6). The automated EEG spike detection software P15 detected interictal epileptiform discharges with 81.1% sensitivity and 96.3% negative predictive value, but had a low positive predictive value of 19.9%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: