Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831588›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in neurology2025

Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.

Joshua C Cheng, Daniel M Goldenholz

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joshua C ChengBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel M Goldenholz

Funding

Non-Invasive Seizure Forecasting System Using E-Diaries, Internal and External FactorsK23NS124656 · NINDS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI Daniel M Goldenholz · 2022 to 2026
$954k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS124656
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis scoping review summarizes key developments in the field of seizure forecasting. RECENT

findingsDevelopments have been made along several modalities of seizure forecasting, including long term intracranial and subcutaneous encephalogram, wearable physiologic monitoring, and seizure diaries. However, clinical translation of these tools is limited by various factors. One is the lack of validation of these tools on an external dataset. Moreover, the widespread practice of comparing models to a chance forecaster may be inadequate. Instead, the model should be able to at least surpass a moving average forecaster, which serves as a 'napkin test' (i.e., can be computed on the back of a napkin). The impact of seizure frequency on model performance should also be accounted for when comparing performance across studies. Surprisingly, despite the potential for poor quality forecasts, some individuals with epilepsy still want access to imprecise forecasts and some even alter their behavior based upon them. SUMMARY: Promising advances have been made in the development of tools for seizure forecasting, but current tools have not yet overcome clinical translation hurdles. Future studies will need to address potentially dangerous patient behaviors as well as account for external validation, the napkin test, seizure frequency dependent metrics.

Indexed as

EpilepsySeizuresElectroencephalographyForecastingHumans

Identifiers

PMID39831588
PMCPMC11882366

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.