Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42410811›Full record

ArticleMedicine2026

SeLECTS-assisted identification based on structured EEG reports: Development and external validation of a multicenter machine learning model.

Lijun Li, Lingxiang Ao, Lei Li, Li Wang, Xiaomei Liu, Kai Liu

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Lijun LiNeurophysiology Center, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Lingxiang AoDepartment of Quality and Safety, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Lei LiNeurophysiology Center, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Li WangNeurophysiology Center, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Xiaomei LiuDepartment of Quality and Safety, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Kai LiuComprehensive Pediatrics, Kunming Children's Hospital & Children's Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3374-3375

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS) is a common pediatric epilepsy characterized by high-amplitude central-temporal spikes on electroencephalogram (EEG). Early identification remains challenging owing to inter-reader variability and inter-center protocol differences. Existing models often rely on single-center raw EEG, limiting generalizability and clinical deployment. An explainable, cross-institutional tool built on structured EEG reports plus routine laboratory tests could improve screening and workflow. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model for SeLECTS assistance and validate its performance on an external dataset, comparing multiple algorithms and evaluating discrimination, calibration, and net clinical benefit, with interpretable outputs for quality control and patient stratification. We performed a multicenter retrospective study (internal n = 1067; external n = 94). Among 242 candidate variables, those with >20% missingness were removed; remaining missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator selected 13 key features, including age; central/temporal discharge localization; spikes or spike-wave complexes; background rhythm; facial/limb clonus; and laboratory indices (e.g., lactate dehydrogenase, white blood cell differential, 25-hydroxyvitamin D). Ten common classifiers were trained and tested. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) was the primary metric; accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score were secondary. Calibration and decision curve analyses assessed probability agreement and clinical net benefit. SHapley Additive exPlanations provided global and patient-level interpretability. eXtreme Gradient Boosting performed best. Internal validation yielded AUROC 0.97, accuracy 0.91, sensitivity 0.83, and specificity 0.94. External validation showed AUROC 0.96, accuracy 0.88, sensitivity 0.74, and specificity 0.94. Compared with internal performance, external results declined only slightly (AUROC -0.01; accuracy -0.03; sensitivity -0.09; specificity unchanged). Calibration indicated close agreement between predicted and observed risks. Decision curve analysis showed consistent positive net benefit across low-to-moderate thresholds. SHapley Additive exPlanations highlighted temporal discharges, age, central discharges, and Lactate Dehydrogenase as leading contributors, consistent with known SeLECTS characteristics. Using 13 multicenter, routinely available features, the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model demonstrated high discrimination, good calibration, and meaningful net benefit in internal and external cohorts. Designed as a second-view aid after EEG reporting, the interpretable, lightweight model supports risk alerts and tiered review and is suitable for scalable deployment across centers.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEpilepsyMachine LearningAlgorithmsBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsChildClassification AlgorithmsFemaleHumansPredictive Learning ModelsRetrospective StudiesBECTcalibration curvedecision curveexternal validationLASSOSHAPXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID42410811
PMCPMC13336960

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.