Schmitt, Sarah E

Abstract Objective Ceribell Inc.'s point‐of‐care electroencephalographic (EEG) system and artificial intelligence‐based Automated Seizure Burden Estimator (ASBE; ClarityPro) have US Food and Drug Administration clearance for diagnosing electrographic status epilepticus (ESE). The AccuRASE study using ASBE version 6 (V6) showed high negative predictive value (NPV) but limited sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) at certain thresholds. Version 8 (V8) is the updated algorithm trained with additional EEG samples. Methods We tested V8 on the previously used rapid‐response EEG test dataset (not used to train V8). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were compared against blinded expert annotations. ESE, ESE and possible ESE (ESE/pESE), electrographic seizures (ESz), and Esz with highly epileptiform patterns (Esz/HEPs) at burden thresholds of >1%, >10%, >20%, >50%, and >90% were analyzed. Additionally, we evaluated the built‐in ESE and ESE/pESE alerts (≥90% over 5 min, ≥20% over 1 h, or ≥10 continuous minutes of seizure). Results V8 showed 100% sensitivity at lower thresholds (>10%–20%) for ESE (V6 .86), without a specificity loss (V8 .9 vs. V6 .85), and retained NPV (V8 1.0 vs. V6 .99). Sensitivity at 50% threshold was .86 for ESE (V6 .71), and specificity was .94 (V6 .91); PPV for ESE was 30% for ESE and 80% for ESE/pESE. The specificity for ESE remained high for 90% burden (V8 .96, V6 .97) but the sensitivity dropped (.29 vs. V6 .43). Sensitivity was lower for ESz/HEPs (.54 → .44 at >10% threshold), although the algorithm is not designed to detect HEPs. Built‐in alert analysis showed significantly improved sensitivity for ESE (.57 → .86); specificity and NPV remained high (>.94). Significance ASBE V8 showed meaningful improvements in sensitivity, continued excellent NPV, and improved built‐in alert accuracy for ESE and ESE/pESE. The best seizure burden threshold for ruling out ESE now is 20% (vs. 10% with V6) and that for ruling in ESE/pESE with reasonable certainty is 50% (vs. 90% with V6).

Purpose: To survey US Clinical Neurophysiology (CNP) fellowship program directors on the nature of CNP and related training programs, current recruitment cycle, and views for a standardized process. Methods: A 23-question electronic survey was sent to all 93 US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited CNP fellowship program directors from December 2020 to January 2021. Results: The response rate was 60%. There was great variability in the number of CNP positions and CNP tracks offered. The following tracks were identified: 48% EEG dominant, 26% EMG dominant, 22% split equally between EEG and EMG, and 2% and 1% were neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring and autonomic dominant, respectively. Of the responding institutions, 43% offered a second year of training options to CNP fellows, mainly in conjunction with Epilepsy fellowship, which was pursued by 25% of CNP fellows. Many programs indicated flexibility in their design between different CNP tracks or between CNP and other related training programs based on the available candidates. The median percentage of CNP fellowship positions filled over the last 5 years was 80%, and there was great variation in the recruitment timeline across institutions. Overall, 86% of program directors favored a universal timeline and 71% favored a formal match for CNP. The respondents were split between an independent CNP match (39%) and joining the initiatives of affiliate societies on a standardized process (61%). Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in the makeup of the CNP fellowship programs and the recruitment process. The majority of CNP program directors are in favor of standardization of the recruitment process.