Monitoring the Burden of Seizures and Highly Epileptiform Patterns in Critical Care with a Novel Machine Learning Method

Introduction: Current electroencephalography (EEG) practice relies on interpretation by expert neurologists, which introduces diagnostic and therapeutic delays that can impact patients’ clinical outcomes. As EEG practice expands, these experts are becoming increasingly limited resources. A highly sensitive and specific automated seizure detection system would streamline practice and expedite appropriate management for patients with possible nonconvulsive seizures. We aimed to test the performance of a recently FDA-cleared machine learning method (Claritγ, Ceribell Inc.) that measures the burden of seizure activity in real time and generates bedside alerts for possible status epilepticus (SE). Methods: We retrospectively identified adult patients (n = 353) who underwent evaluation of possible seizures with Rapid Response EEG system (Rapid-EEG, Ceribell Inc.). Automated detection of seizure activity and seizure burden throughout a recording (calculated as the percentage of ten-second epochs with seizure activity in any 5-min EEG segment) was performed with Claritγ, and various thresholds of seizure burden were tested (≥ 10% indicating ≥ 30 s of seizure activity in the last 5 min, ≥ 50% indicating ≥ 2.5 min of seizure activity, and ≥ 90% indicating ≥ 4.5 min of seizure activity and triggering a SE alert). The sensitivity and specificity of Claritγ’s real-time seizure burden measurements and SE alerts were compared to the majority consensus of at least two expert neurologists. Results: Majority consensus of neurologists labeled the 353 EEGs as normal or slow activity (n = 249), highly epileptiform patterns (HEP, n = 87), or seizures [n = 17, nine longer than 5 min (e.g., SE), and eight shorter than 5 min]. The algorithm generated a SE alert (≥ 90% seizure burden) with 100% sensitivity and 93% specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of various thresholds for seizure burden during EEG recordings for detecting patients with seizures were 100% and 82% for ≥ 50% seizure burden and 88% and 60% for ≥ 10% seizure burden. Of the 179 EEG recordings in which the algorithm detected no seizures, seizures were identified by the expert reviewers in only two cases, indicating a negative predictive value of 99%. Discussion: Claritγ detected SE events with high sensitivity and specificity, and it demonstrated a high negative predictive value for distinguishing nonepileptiform activity from seizure and highly epileptiform activity. Conclusions: Ruling out seizures accurately in a large proportion of cases can help prevent unnecessary or aggressive over-treatment in critical care settings, where empiric treatment with antiseizure medications is currently prevalent. Claritγ’s high sensitivity for SE and high negative predictive value for cases without epileptiform activity make it a useful tool for triaging treatment and the need for urgent neurological consultation.