TY - JOUR
T1 - Towards Improved Design and Evaluation of Epileptic Seizure Predictors
AU - Korshunova, Iryna
AU - Kindermans, Pieter Jan
AU - Degrave, Jonas
AU - Verhoeven, Thibault
AU - Brinkmann, Benjamin H.
AU - Dambre, Joni
N1 - Funding Information:
Manuscript received February 13, 2017; revised April 13, 2017; accepted April 27, 2017. Date of publication May 2, 2017; date of current version February 16, 2018. This work was supported in part by the Special Research Fund of Ghent University, in part by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders, and in part by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant 657679. (Corresponding author: Iryna Korshunova.) I. Korshunova is with the Ghent University, Ghent 9052, Belgium (e-mail: iryna.korshunova@ugent.be).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 IEEE.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Objective: Key issues in the epilepsy seizure prediction research are (1) the reproducibility of results (2) the inability to compare multiple approaches directly. To overcome these problems, the seizure prediction challenge was organized on Kaggle.com. It aimed at establishing benchmarks on a dataset with predefined train, validation, and test sets. Our main objective is to analyze the competition format, and to propose improvements, which would facilitate a better comparison of algorithms. The second objective is to present a novel deep learning approach to seizure prediction and compare it to other commonly used methods using patient centered metrics. Methods: We used the competition's datasets to illustrate the effects of data contamination. Having better data partitions, we compared three types of models in terms of different objectives. Results: We found that correct selection of test samples is crucial when evaluating the performance of seizure forecasting models. Moreover, we showed that models, which achieve state-of-the-art performance with respect to commonly used AUC, sensitivity, and specificity metrics, may not yet be suitable for practical usage because of low precision scores. Conclusion: Correlation between validation and test datasets used in the competition limited its scientific value. Significance: Our findings provide guidelines which allow for a more objective evaluation of seizure prediction models.
AB - Objective: Key issues in the epilepsy seizure prediction research are (1) the reproducibility of results (2) the inability to compare multiple approaches directly. To overcome these problems, the seizure prediction challenge was organized on Kaggle.com. It aimed at establishing benchmarks on a dataset with predefined train, validation, and test sets. Our main objective is to analyze the competition format, and to propose improvements, which would facilitate a better comparison of algorithms. The second objective is to present a novel deep learning approach to seizure prediction and compare it to other commonly used methods using patient centered metrics. Methods: We used the competition's datasets to illustrate the effects of data contamination. Having better data partitions, we compared three types of models in terms of different objectives. Results: We found that correct selection of test samples is crucial when evaluating the performance of seizure forecasting models. Moreover, we showed that models, which achieve state-of-the-art performance with respect to commonly used AUC, sensitivity, and specificity metrics, may not yet be suitable for practical usage because of low precision scores. Conclusion: Correlation between validation and test datasets used in the competition limited its scientific value. Significance: Our findings provide guidelines which allow for a more objective evaluation of seizure prediction models.
KW - Epilepsy
KW - linear discriminant analysis
KW - neural networks
KW - support vector machines
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042304781&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042304781&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TBME.2017.2700086
DO - 10.1109/TBME.2017.2700086
M3 - Article
C2 - 28475041
AN - SCOPUS:85042304781
SN - 0018-9294
VL - 65
SP - 502
EP - 510
JO - IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
JF - IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
IS - 3
ER -