ArticleResearch square2026
Reliable but Wrong? Automated Detection of Heart Rate Artifacts as a Source of Bias in Pediatric EEG Data.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated processing pipelines are increasing in popularity for analysis of EEG data, however care must be taken when using automated algorithms are applied outside their training dataset. This study assessed whether ICLABEL, a widely used artifact detection algorithm trained primarily on adult EEG, generalizes to pediatric EEG, with a focus on cardiac artifact which is easily identified by trained researchers yet prone to confounding automated detection due to spectral overlap with common EEG outcomes. Resting EEG child data from a randomized controlled trial (n = 47) was analyzed via ICLABEL and compared to manual artifact detection. ICLABEL miscategorized cardiac artifacts 100% of the time, with 66 of 92 components displaying a heart rate waveform labeled as 0% likelihood of cardiac artifact. To assess downstream impact, data with manual artifact removal was compared to data retaining heart rate components, examining effects on theta and beta power and theta/beta ratio, frequencies that overlap with cardiac artifact. Retention of heart rate artifacts significantly elevated theta and beta power estimates and introduced a spurious treatment effect on eyes-closed beta power, underscoring the importance of proper artifact removal before interpreting study outcomes. We recommend supervised use of the algorithm when applied to pediatric EEG or data that diverges from neurotypical adult data.
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.