Elham Bagheri1, Justin Dauwels2, Brian C Dean3, Chad G Waters4, M Brandon Westover5, Jonathan J Halford6. 1. School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Electronic address: elham001@e.ntu.edu.sg. 2. School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Electronic address: jdauwels@ntu.edu.sg. 3. School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Electronic address: bcdean@clemson.edu. 4. School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Electronic address: cgwater@g.clemson.edu. 5. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: mwestover@mgh.harvard.edu. 6. Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: halfordj@musc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The presence of interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) is a key finding in the medical workup of a patient with suspected epilepsy. However, inter-rater agreement (IRA) regarding the presence of IED is imperfect, leading to incorrect and delayed diagnoses. An improved understanding of which IED attributes mediate expert IRA might help in developing automatic methods for IED detection able to emulate the abilities of experts. Therefore, using a set of IED scored by a large number of experts, we set out to determine which attributes of IED predict expert agreement regarding the presence of IED. METHODS: IED were annotated on a 5-point scale by 18 clinical neurophysiologists within 200 30-s EEG segments from recordings of 200 patients. 5538 signal analysis features were extracted from the waveforms, including wavelet coefficients, morphological features, signal energy, nonlinear energy operator response, electrode location, and spectrogram features. Feature selection was performed by applying elastic net regression and support vector regression (SVR) was applied to predict expert opinion, with and without the feature selection procedure and with and without several types of signal normalization. RESULTS: Multiple types of features were useful for predicting expert annotations, but particular types of wavelet features performed best. Local EEG normalization also enhanced best model performance. As the size of the group of EEGers used to train the models was increased, the performance of the models leveled off at a group size of around 11. CONCLUSIONS: The features that best predict inter-rater agreement among experts regarding the presence of IED are wavelet features, using locally standardized EEG. Our models for predicting expert opinion based on EEGer's scores perform best with a large group of EEGers (more than 10). SIGNIFICANCE: By examining a large group of EEG signal analysis features we found that wavelet features with certain wavelet basis functions performed best to identify IEDs. Local normalization also improves predictability, suggesting the importance of IED morphology over amplitude-based features. Although most IED detection studies in the past have used opinion from three or fewer experts, our study suggests a "wisdom of the crowd" effect, such that pooling over a larger number of expert opinions produces a better correlation between expert opinion and objectively quantifiable features of the EEG.
OBJECTIVE: The presence of interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) is a key finding in the medical workup of a patient with suspected epilepsy. However, inter-rater agreement (IRA) regarding the presence of IED is imperfect, leading to incorrect and delayed diagnoses. An improved understanding of which IED attributes mediate expert IRA might help in developing automatic methods for IED detection able to emulate the abilities of experts. Therefore, using a set of IED scored by a large number of experts, we set out to determine which attributes of IED predict expert agreement regarding the presence of IED. METHODS: IED were annotated on a 5-point scale by 18 clinical neurophysiologists within 200 30-s EEG segments from recordings of 200 patients. 5538 signal analysis features were extracted from the waveforms, including wavelet coefficients, morphological features, signal energy, nonlinear energy operator response, electrode location, and spectrogram features. Feature selection was performed by applying elastic net regression and support vector regression (SVR) was applied to predict expert opinion, with and without the feature selection procedure and with and without several types of signal normalization. RESULTS: Multiple types of features were useful for predicting expert annotations, but particular types of wavelet features performed best. Local EEG normalization also enhanced best model performance. As the size of the group of EEGers used to train the models was increased, the performance of the models leveled off at a group size of around 11. CONCLUSIONS: The features that best predict inter-rater agreement among experts regarding the presence of IED are wavelet features, using locally standardized EEG. Our models for predicting expert opinion based on EEGer's scores perform best with a large group of EEGers (more than 10). SIGNIFICANCE: By examining a large group of EEG signal analysis features we found that wavelet features with certain wavelet basis functions performed best to identify IEDs. Local normalization also improves predictability, suggesting the importance of IED morphology over amplitude-based features. Although most IED detection studies in the past have used opinion from three or fewer experts, our study suggests a "wisdom of the crowd" effect, such that pooling over a larger number of expert opinions produces a better correlation between expert opinion and objectively quantifiable features of the EEG.
Authors: C Castellaro; G Favaro; A Castellaro; A Casagrande; S Castellaro; D V Puthenparampil; C Fattorello Salimbeni Journal: Neurophysiol Clin Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Jonathan J Halford; 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 Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-03 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: 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: Emily L Thorn; Lauren M Ostrowski; Dhinakaran M Chinappen; Jin Jing; M Brandon Westover; Steven M Stufflebeam; Mark A Kramer; Catherine J Chu Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 5.864
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: Elham Bagheri; Jing Jin; Justin Dauwels; Sydney Cash; M Brandon Westover Journal: Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process Date: 2018-09-13