An Automated Classifier of Harmful Brain Activities for Clinical Usage Based on a Vision-Inspired Pre-trained Framework

TL;DR

This study introduces VIPEEGNet, a deep learning model inspired by vision systems, for automatic detection of harmful brain activities from EEG data, demonstrating high accuracy and efficiency in clinical settings.

Contribution

The paper presents a novel vision-inspired convolutional neural network that achieves state-of-the-art accuracy in classifying harmful EEG patterns with fewer parameters.

Findings

High AUROC scores for multiple EEG categories (above 0.93)

Performance comparable to human experts in multi-class classification

Top 2 ranking among 2,767 algorithms with only 2.8% of parameters

Abstract

Timely identification of harmful brain activities via electroencephalography (EEG) is critical for brain disease diagnosis and treatment, which remains limited application due to inter-rater variability, resource constraints, and poor generalizability of existing artificial intelligence (AI) models. In this study, a convolutional neural network model, VIPEEGNet, was developed and validated using EEGs recorded from Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. The VIPEEGNet was developed and validated using two independent datasets, collected between 2006 and 2020. The development cohort included EEG recordings from 1950 patients, with 106,800 EEG segments annotated by at least one experts (ranging from 1 to 28). The online testing cohort consisted of EEG segments from a subset of an additional 1,532 patients, each annotated by at least 10 experts. For the development cohort (n=1950), the VIPEEGNet achieved high accuracy, with an AUROC for binary classification of seizure, LPD, GPD, LRDA, GRDA, and "other" categories at 0.972 (95% CI, 0.957-0.988), 0.962 (95% CI, 0.954-0.970), 0.972 (95% CI, 0.960-0.984), 0.938 (95% CI, 0.917-0.959), 0.949 (95% CI, 0.941-0.957), and 0.930 (95% CI, 0.926-0.935). For multi classification, the sensitivity of VIPEEGNET for the six categories ranges from 36.8% to 88.2% and the precision ranges from 55.6% to 80.4%, and performance similar to human experts. Notably, the external validation showed Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD)of 0.223 and 0.273, ranking top 2 among the existing 2,767 competing algorithms, while we only used 2.8% of the parameters of the first-ranked algorithm.