Jonathan J Halford1, Amir Arain, Giridhar P Kalamangalam, Suzette M LaRoche, Bonilha Leonardo, Maysaa Basha, Nabil J Azar, Ekrem Kutluay, Gabriel U Martz, Wolf J Bethany, Chad G Waters, Brian C Dean. 1. *Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.; †Department of Neurology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A.; ‡Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center of Huston, Huston, Texas, U.S.A.; §Mission Health, Asheville, North Carolina, U.S.A.; ‖Department of Neurology, Wayne State University and Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.; ¶Academic Health System, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar; #Norton Neurology Services, Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A.; **Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.; and ††School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of the project is to determine characteristics of academic neurophysiologist EEG interpreters (EEGers), which predict good interrater agreement (IRA) and to determine the number of EEGers needed to develop an ideal standardized testing and training data set for epileptiform transient (ET) detection algorithms. METHODS: A three-phase scoring method was used. In phase 1, 19 EEGers marked the location of ETs in two hundred 30-second segments of EEG from 200 different patients. In phase 2, EEG events marked by at least 2 EEGers were annotated by 18 EEGers on a 5-point scale to indicate whether they were ETs. In phase 3, a third opinion was obtained from EEGers on any inconsistencies between phase 1 and phase 2 scoring. RESULTS: The IRA for the 18 EEGers was only fair. A select group of the EEGers had good IRA and the other EEGers had low IRA. Board certification by the American Board of Clinical Neurophysiology was associated with better IRA performance but other board certifications, years of fellowship training, and years of practice were not. As the number of EEGers used for scoring is increased, the amount of change in the consensus opinion decreases steadily and is quite low as the group size approaches 10. CONCLUSIONS: The IRA among EEGers varies considerably. The EEGers must be tested before use as scorers for ET annotation research projects. The American Board of Clinical Neurophysiology certification is associated with improved performance. The optimal size for a group of experts scoring ETs in EEG is probably in the 6 to 10 range.
PURPOSE: The goal of the project is to determine characteristics of academic neurophysiologist EEG interpreters (EEGers), which predict good interrater agreement (IRA) and to determine the number of EEGers needed to develop an ideal standardized testing and training data set for epileptiform transient (ET) detection algorithms. METHODS: A three-phase scoring method was used. In phase 1, 19 EEGers marked the location of ETs in two hundred 30-second segments of EEG from 200 different patients. In phase 2, EEG events marked by at least 2 EEGers were annotated by 18 EEGers on a 5-point scale to indicate whether they were ETs. In phase 3, a third opinion was obtained from EEGers on any inconsistencies between phase 1 and phase 2 scoring. RESULTS: The IRA for the 18 EEGers was only fair. A select group of the EEGers had good IRA and the other EEGers had low IRA. Board certification by the American Board of Clinical Neurophysiology was associated with better IRA performance but other board certifications, years of fellowship training, and years of practice were not. As the number of EEGers used for scoring is increased, the amount of change in the consensus opinion decreases steadily and is quite low as the group size approaches 10. CONCLUSIONS: The IRA among EEGers varies considerably. The EEGers must be tested before use as scorers for ET annotation research projects. The American Board of Clinical Neurophysiology certification is associated with improved performance. The optimal size for a group of experts scoring ETs in EEG is probably in the 6 to 10 range.
Authors: Jonathan J Halford; William B Pressly; Selim R Benbadis; William O Tatum; Robert P Turner; Amir Arain; Paul B Pritchard; Jonathan C Edwards; Brian C Dean Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Jonathan J Halford; Robert J Schalkoff; Jing Zhou; Selim R Benbadis; William O Tatum; Robert P Turner; Saurabh R Sinha; Nathan B Fountain; Amir Arain; Paul B Pritchard; Ekrem Kutluay; Gabriel Martz; Jonathan C Edwards; Chad Waters; Brian C Dean Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: K P Indiradevi; Elizabeth Elias; P S Sathidevi; S Dinesh Nayak; K Radhakrishnan Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Maurice Abou Jaoude; Jin Jing; Haoqi Sun; Claire S Jacobs; Kyle R Pellerin; M Brandon Westover; Sydney S Cash; Alice D Lam Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jin Jing; Aline Herlopian; Ioannis Karakis; Marcus Ng; Jonathan J Halford; Alice Lam; Douglas Maus; Fonda Chan; Marjan Dolatshahi; Carlos F Muniz; Catherine Chu; Valeria Sacca; Jay Pathmanathan; WenDong Ge; Haoqi Sun; Justin Dauwels; Andrew J Cole; Daniel B Hoch; Sydney S Cash; M Brandon Westover Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Elham Bagheri; Justin Dauwels; Brian C Dean; Chad G Waters; M Brandon Westover; Jonathan J Halford Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jonathan J Halford; M Brandon Westover; Suzette M LaRoche; Micheal P Macken; Ekrem Kutluay; Jonathan C Edwards; Leonardo Bonilha; Giridhar P Kalamangalam; Kan Ding; Jennifer L Hopp; Amir Arain; Rachael A Dawson; Gabriel U Martz; Bethany J Wolf; Chad G Waters; Brian C Dean Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: K G van Leeuwen; H Sun; M Tabaeizadeh; A F Struck; M J A M van Putten; M B Westover Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Elham Bagheri; Jing Jin; Justin Dauwels; Sydney Cash; M Brandon Westover Journal: Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process Date: 2018-09-13
Authors: Alice D Lam; Rani A Sarkis; Kyle R Pellerin; Jin Jing; Barbara A Dworetzky; Daniel B Hoch; Claire S Jacobs; Jong Woo Lee; Daniel S Weisholtz; Rodrigo Zepeda; M Brandon Westover; Andrew J Cole; Sydney S Cash Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 9.910