Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Develops a reliable EEG biomarker for distinguishing epilepsy in diverse populations, suggesting improved diagnostics.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an interpretable multi-centre interictal EEG biomarker for distinguishing epilepsy from mimickers, addressing the critical gap of single-centre studies with limited sample sizes in prior literature. METHODS: We analysed routine interictal EEG from 448 subjects across two tertiary centres (IHBAS: N = 230; MAX: N = 218), encompassing diverse epilepsy subtypes and mimicker categories. A 13-dimensional Interictal Clinical Signature (ICS) encoding spectral slowing, posterior dominant rhythm, complexity, and network synchrony was computed from 10-second epochs. A two-stage logistic regression framework aggregated epoch-level features into subject-level predictions. Recording-length confounding was assessed through predictor exclusion and fixed-duration truncation analyses. RESULTS: Within-centre AUCs were 0.723 (95% CI: 0.655-0.783) for IH-BAS and 0.790 (95% CI: 0.722-0.845) for MAX. When recording length was excluded as a predictor, cross-centre generalisation was symmetric (MAX→ IHBAS: 0.725; IHBAS→MAX: 0.725). Fixed-duration truncation (10-30 minutes) confirmed consistent cross-centre AUCs of 0.70-0.72. Performance remained stable between 20-125 Hz sampling rates. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dimensional, clinically interpretable EEG features support robust epilepsy-versus-mimicker classification within and across centres when recording-length confounds are controlled. SIGNIFICANCE: This multi-centre validation demonstrates that the ICS framework provides an accessible decision-support tool for epilepsy diagnostics with centre-invariant performance, while the systematic confound analysis offers a methodological template for EEG biomarker studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lahiri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: