open access publication

Article, 2024

Automated analysis and detection of epileptic seizures in video recordings using artificial intelligence

Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, ISSN 1662-5196, Volume 18, 10.3389/fninf.2024.1324981

Contributors

Rai P. (Corresponding author) [1] Knight A. 0000-0003-0525-0351 [1] [2] Hiillos M. [1] Kertesz C. [1] Morales E. [1] Terney D. [3] Larsen S.A. [3] Osterkjerhuus T. [4] Peltola J. 0000-0002-4119-8063 [2] [5] Beniczky S. 0000-0002-6035-6581 [3] [4] [6]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Neuro Event Labs
  2. [NORA names: Finland; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] Tampere University
  4. [NORA names: Finland; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  5. [3] Danish Epilepsy Centre
  6. [NORA names: Filadelfia - Danish Epilepsy Hospital; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  7. [4] Aarhus University Hospital
  8. [NORA names: Central Denmark Region; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  9. [5] Tampere University Hospital
  10. [NORA names: Finland; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];

Abstract

Introduction: Automated seizure detection promises to aid in the prevention of SUDEP and improve the quality of care by assisting in epilepsy diagnosis and treatment adjustment. Methods: In this phase 2 exploratory study, the performance of a contactless, marker-free, video-based motor seizure detection system is assessed, considering video recordings of patients (age 0–80 years), in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, with respect to video-electroencephalographic monitoring (VEM) as the medical gold standard. Detection performances of five categories of motor epileptic seizures (tonic–clonic, hyperkinetic, tonic, unclassified motor, automatisms) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) with a motor behavioral component lasting for >10 s were assessed independently at different detection thresholds (rather than as a categorical classification problem). A total of 230 patients were recruited in the study, of which 334 in-scope (>10 s) motor seizures (out of 1,114 total seizures) were identified by VEM reported from 81 patients. We analyzed both daytime and nocturnal recordings. The control threshold was evaluated at a range of values to compare the sensitivity (n = 81 subjects with seizures) and false detection rate (FDR) (n = all 230 subjects). Results: At optimal thresholds, the performance of seizure groups in terms of sensitivity (CI) and FDR/h (CI): tonic–clonic- 95.2% (82.4, 100%); 0.09 (0.077, 0.103), hyperkinetic- 92.9% (68.5, 98.7%); 0.64 (0.59, 0.69), tonic- 78.3% (64.4, 87.7%); 5.87 (5.51, 6.23), automatism- 86.7% (73.5, 97.7%); 3.34 (3.12, 3.58), unclassified motor seizures- 78% (65.4, 90.4%); 4.81 (4.50, 5.14), and PNES- 97.7% (97.7, 100%); 1.73 (1.61, 1.86). A generic threshold recommended for all motor seizures under study asserted 88% sensitivity and 6.48 FDR/h. Discussion: These results indicate an achievable performance for major motor seizure detection that is clinically applicable for use as a seizure screening solution in diagnostic workflows.

Keywords

artificial intelligence, biomarkers, epilepsy, motor seizures, seizure detection, signal processing

Data Provider: Elsevier