ArticleCurrent opinion in neurology2025
Seizure prediction and forecasting: a scoping review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuronal silence as a predictive biomarker and target for epileptic seizures suppression.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Does Missing Medication Acutely Change Seizure Risk? A Prospective Study.Annals of neurology · 2026Article
- Review
- A Digital Intervention for Capturing Real-Time Health Data for Epilepsy Seizure Forecasting: Protocol for the ATMOSPHERE Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Multiscale predictive modeling robustly improves the accuracy of pseudo-prospective seizure forecasting in drug-resistant epilepsy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.