当前位置: 首页 > 详情页

Measuring expertise in identifying interictal epileptiform discharges

文献详情

资源类型:
WOS体系:

收录情况: ◇ SCIE

机构: [1]Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Neurol, Boston, MA 02114 USA [2]Yale Sch Med, Dept Neurol, New Haven, CT USA [3]Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Neurol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA [4]Univ Manitoba, Dept Neurol, Winnipeg, MB, Canada [5]Peking Univ, Natl Inst Hlth Data Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China [6]Capital Med Univ, Xuanwu Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China [7]Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Neurol, Bayview Med Ctr, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA [8]Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, Boston, MA 02215 USA [9]Hartford Hosp, Hartford HealthCare Med Grp, Dept Neurol, Hartford, CT 06115 USA [10]Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Neurol, Charleston, SC 29425 USA
出处:
ISSN:

关键词: interictal epileptiform discharge EEG epilepsy assessment expert and non-expert

摘要:
Objective. Interictal epileptiform discharges on EEG are integral to diagnosing epilepsy. However, EEGs are interpreted by readers with and without specialty training, and there is no accepted method to assess skill in interpretation. We aimed to develop a test to quantify IED recognition skills. Methods. A total of 13,262 candidate IEDs were selected from EEGs and scored by eight fellowship-trained reviewers to establish a gold standard. An online test was developed to assess how well readers with different training levels could distinguish candidate waveforms. Sensitivity, false positive rate and calibration were calculated for each reader. A simple mathematical model was developed to estimate each reader's skill and threshold in identifying an IED, and to develop receiver operating characteristics curves for each reader. We investigated the number of IEDs needed to measure skill level with acceptable precision. Results. Twenty-nine raters completed the test; nine experts, seven experienced non-experts and thirteen novices. Median calibration errors for experts, experienced non-experts and novices were -0.056, 0.012, 0.046; median sensitivities were 0.800, 0.811, 0.715; and median false positive rates were 0.177, 0.272, 0.396, respectively. The number of test questions needed to measure those scores was 549. Our analysis identified that novices had a higher noise level (uncertainty) compared to experienced non-experts and experts. Using calculated noise and threshold levels, receiver operating curves were created, showing increasing median area under the curve from novices (0.735), to experienced non-experts (0.852) and experts (0.891). Significance. Expert and non-expert readers can be distinguished based on ability to identify IEDs. This type of assessment could also be used to identify and correct differences in thresholds in identifying IEDs.

语种:
WOS:
PubmedID:
中科院(CAS)分区:
出版当年[2021]版:
大类 | 4 区 医学
小类 | 4 区 临床神经病学
最新[2023]版:
大类 | 4 区 医学
小类 | 4 区 临床神经病学
JCR分区:
出版当年[2020]版:
Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
最新[2023]版:
Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

影响因子: 最新[2023版] 最新五年平均 出版当年[2020版] 出版当年五年平均 出版前一年[2019版] 出版后一年[2021版]

第一作者:
第一作者机构: [1]Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Neurol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
通讯作者:
通讯机构: [1]Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Neurol, Boston, MA 02114 USA [*1]Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Neurol WACC 735,55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114 USA
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
APA:
MLA:

资源点击量:16409 今日访问量:0 总访问量:869 更新日期:2025-01-01 建议使用谷歌、火狐浏览器 常见问题

版权所有©2020 首都医科大学宣武医院 技术支持:重庆聚合科技有限公司 地址:北京市西城区长椿街45号宣武医院