How to report neurotechnology and artificial intelligence studies in epilepsy: Peer‐review‐inspired recommendations
We studied how researchers report studies on neurotechnology and AI in epilepsy. Many studies face problems during peer review, such as unclear methods, weak study rationale, and errors in statistics or citations. We analyzed reviewer feedback and created recommendations to improve how these studies are reported. Our goal is to help researchers develop and present their work more clearly and accurately, making it easier for others to understand and build upon their findings. This can lead to better use of AI and neurotechnology in epilepsy research and care.
Authors
- Andrea Biondi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-665X)
- Matthew McWilliam (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4325-3941)
- Pedro F. Viana (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0861-8705)
- Jesús‐Servando Medel‐Matus (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1103-468X)
- Aristea S. Galanopoulou (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0472-2903)
- Naoto Kuroda (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1977-4893)
- Giulia Sofia Cereda (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2110-092X)
Institutions
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- King's College London (GB)
- Wayne State University (US)
- Tohoku University (JP)
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (IT)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Epilepsia Open
- Published
- 2025-11-27
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1002/epi4.70194
- Primary Topic
- EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- U.S. Department of Defense
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development