McLaren, John R.

Abstract Objective To measure the relative levels of signal and noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy. Methods Twenty multinational epileptologists independently reviewed 50 vignettes of adult and pediatric patients presenting with suspected seizure(s) on two separate occasions with a ≥30‐day washout period. Experts provided a diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on clinical information and, if requested, routine EEG and neuroimaging data. Cases had an established clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on capture of habitual paroxysmal events on video‐EEG or long‐term clinical follow‐up. Experts' judgments were analyzed to decompose variability into different sources: signal (objective differences between cases), level noise (experts' bias toward over/under‐diagnosis), pattern noise (experts' idiosyncratic reactions to specific case features), and occasion noise (inconsistency across occasions). Results The probability of an expert making a different diagnosis for a given case on two different occasions was 16%. The probability of two different experts making a different diagnosis for the same case was 26%. Signal (case “difficulty”) accounted for 66–69% of total variation, with 31–34% attributable to noise. Level noise was the largest contributor in the absence of EEG/neuroimaging results (23%), while pattern noise dominated when test results were available (24%). Occasion noise contributed relatively little (1%) but was still sufficient to cause diagnostic reversals in 16–22% between occasions. Significance The degree of noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy is substantial, stemming primarily from physicians' idiosyncratic interpretations of case features and variable dispositions toward over‐ or under‐diagnosis. Strategies to improve reliability are needed, including standardized data collection protocols and structured decision algorithms. For “difficult cases,” where expert reliability and accuracy are lowest, our findings support current clinical practice which favors early referral for video‐EEG monitoring over reliance on diagnostic anchoring. This diagnostic pathway may become more accessible with advances in EEG technology (e.g., wearable devices) and artificial intelligence.

Developmental/epileptic encephalopathy with spike-wave activation in sleep (DEE-SWAS) is newly proposed nomenclature put forth by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) to replace the problematic electrographic and/or clinical phenotypes of electrical status epilepticus of sleep (ESES) and continuous spike-wave in sleep (CSWS). The nomenclature update represents a noble effort to minimize the confusion of how to define and appropriately utilize this alphabet soup of acronyms, thereby aiding in future clinical and research efforts. The name change fails to capture greater challenges within the field, which still plague diagnosis and treatment and stagnates substantive research advancements. Through a directed literature review of DEE-SWAS with emphasis on the new ILAE nomenclature and the RESCUE-ESES trial, we will highlight major persistent quandaries in the field. These include inadequate or insufficient diagnostic biomarkers (ie, the spike wave index), the highly variable clinical manifestations, ranging from dubious associations to profound developmental regression, presumptively caused by spike-wave activation in sleep, and variable and often ineffective treatment paradigms. We will also review the broader diagnostic evaluation of DEE-SWAS. By doing so, we aim to shed light on crucial research and clinical questions that could advance our understanding of diagnosing and treating children with DEE-SWAS, as well as addressing the uncertainty surrounding the neurological effects of sleep-activated epileptiform discharges.