ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
An Automated Classifier of Harmful Brain Activities for Clinical Usage Based on a Vision-Inspired Pre-trained Framework.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Timely identification of harmful brain activities via electroencephalography (EEG) is critical for brain disease diagnosis and treatment, which remains limited in application due to inter-rater variability, resource constraints, and poor generalizability of existing artificial intelligence models. In this study, we describe an automated classifier, VIPEEGNet, which leverages the advantage of transfer learning from ImageNet-pretrained models to distinguish six types of brain activities. For the development cohort, the recall of VIPEEGNet ranges from 36.8% to 88.2%, and the precision ranges from 55.6% to 80.4%, with performance comparable to that of human experts. Notably, the external testing showed Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) values of 0.223 (public) and 0.273 (private), ranking second among the existing 2767 competing algorithms, while using only 0.7% of the parameters of the top-ranked algorithm. Its minimal parameter requirements and modular design offer a deployable solution for real-time brain monitoring, potentially expanding access to expert-level EEG interpretation in resource-limited settings.
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.