{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3382","dataset_id":"ds004774","associated_paper_doi":"10.1101/2024.01.09.574915","authors":["M.A. van den Boom","N.M. Gregg","G.O. Valencia","B.N. Lundstrom","K.J. Miller","D. van Blooijs","G.J.M. Huiskamp","F.S.S. Leijten","G.A. Worrell","D. Hermes"],"bids_version":"Brain Imaging Data Structure Specification v1.8.0","contact_info":null,"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":true,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004774.v1.0.0","datatypes":["ieeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":14,"ages":[16,41,62,65,36,11,12,9,14,16,7,50,8,6],"age_min":6,"age_max":65,"age_mean":25.214285714285715,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"f":7,"m":7},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"paper_url":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.09.574915"},"funding":["NIMH R01MH122258","Epilepsy Foundation of the Netherlands/Dutch Epilepsy Foundation, NEF17-07"],"ingestion_fingerprint":"9b25cdbab1dca0c55327f278c5fb13b2e1e7f6072bf7957ef5449c49bf2e16a3","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Automatic Evoked Response Detection (ER-Detect) dataset","readme":null,"recording_modality":["ieeg"],"senior_author":null,"sessions":["1","1b","ieeg01"],"size_bytes":32388352996,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["SPESclin","ccep"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-05-31T16:15:55.123565+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":null},"total_files":14,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004774","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"a52cfa2c301facb5","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Epilepsy"],"modality":["Other"],"type":["Clinical/Intervention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.6,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot reference is the pediatric epilepsy HFO dataset (Pathology=Epilepsy, Type=Clinical/Intervention), which reflects a labeling convention that datasets built around clinical EEG procedures/biomarker detection in a patient population are categorized as Clinical/Intervention rather than a cognitive construct. While the ER-Detect dataset is not sleep/HFO, it similarly appears to be a clinical neurophysiology dataset centered on detecting evoked responses (CCEP/SPES), so the same convention guides selecting Type=Clinical/Intervention and a clinical-pathology label rather than Healthy.\nA secondary stylistic reference is the Parkinson’s oddball dataset labeled Clinical/Intervention: it shows that when the primary focus is characterizing/quantifying clinically relevant neural markers in a clinical cohort, Type is Clinical/Intervention even if there is a task paradigm.","metadata_analysis":"Key metadata facts:\n1) Title indicates a clinical/technical evoked-response focus: \"Automatic Evoked Response Detection (ER-Detect) dataset\".\n2) Tasks are explicitly: \"SPESclin\" and \"ccep\".\n3) Participants are a mixed-age clinical cohort size typical for invasive/clinical studies: \"Subjects: 14\" with \"Age range: 6-65\".\nInterpretation from these phrases: SPES (single-pulse electrical stimulation) and CCEP (cortico-cortical evoked potentials) are typically recorded in intracranial clinical monitoring contexts (commonly presurgical epilepsy evaluation), suggesting a clinical recruited population and a clinical/methodological aim rather than a sensory-perceptual experiment.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: tasks are \"SPESclin\" and \"ccep\" (clinical stimulation/evoked potentials) and provides only demographics (\"Age range: 6-65\") without naming a diagnosis.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: clinical neurophysiology datasets in patients are labeled with the recruiting pathology when known (e.g., Epilepsy) or with a clinical label (e.g., Surgery) when perioperative.\n- Alignment: PARTIAL. Metadata implies a clinical cohort but does not explicitly state epilepsy vs other surgical indications.\n- Resolution: choose Epilepsy as the most likely recruiting condition for SPES/CCEP datasets, but keep confidence moderate because the diagnosis is not explicitly stated.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: tasks are \"SPESclin\" and \"ccep\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: modality is the stimulus/input channel; when not classic sensory (auditory/visual/tactile/motor) and involves clinical stimulation, use \"Other\".\n- Alignment: ALIGN. Electrical stimulation is not one of the standard sensory modalities in the allowed list.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: \"Automatic Evoked Response Detection\" and tasks \"SPESclin\"/\"ccep\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when the dataset focus is clinical procedures/biomarkers/methods in patient recordings, label Type as \"Clinical/Intervention\".\n- Alignment: ALIGN. The dataset appears centered on detecting evoked responses from clinical stimulation, consistent with Clinical/Intervention rather than Perception/Attention/etc.","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n\nPathology:\n1) Epilepsy (selected): supported indirectly by \"SPESclin\" and \"ccep\", which are most commonly collected during presurgical epilepsy monitoring; small N=14 and broad age range (\"6-65\") also fits clinical invasive cohorts.\n2) Surgery (runner-up): also plausible because SPES/CCEP are used in surgical mapping contexts; however metadata does not explicitly mention surgery/perioperative setting.\nDecision: Epilepsy wins as the most typical recruiting diagnosis for CCEP/SPES datasets, but evidence is inferential (no explicit diagnosis stated) → moderate confidence.\n\nModality:\n1) Other (selected): tasks \"SPESclin\"/\"ccep\" imply direct electrical stimulation rather than auditory/visual/tactile.\n2) Multisensory (runner-up): unlikely because no sensory stimuli are described.\nDecision: Other clearly best.\n\nType:\n1) Clinical/Intervention (selected): title \"Automatic Evoked Response Detection\" + clinical stimulation tasks (\"SPESclin\", \"ccep\") indicate a clinical/methodological evoked-response purpose.\n2) Other (runner-up): could be framed as general connectivity/methods without explicit clinical outcomes, but the task naming strongly suggests clinical neurophysiology.\nDecision: Clinical/Intervention best supported.\n\nConfidence justification (quotes/features):\n- Pathology confidence is limited because there is no explicit diagnostic phrase; inference relies on task labels \"SPESclin\"/\"ccep\".\n- Modality and Type are more directly supported by the same explicit task labels and the evoked-response detection focus in the title."}},"computed_title":"Automatic Evoked Response Detection (ER-Detect) dataset","nchans_counts":[{"val":133,"count":6},{"val":39,"count":2},{"val":68,"count":2},{"val":89,"count":1},{"val":97,"count":1},{"val":130,"count":1},{"val":65,"count":1}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":2048.0,"count":14}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-31T19:34:32.599796+00:00","total_duration_s":42914.224609375,"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.74,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.343Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"canonical","author_year":"Boom2023","bad_channels_info":null,"acknowledgements":"We thank Jaap van der Aar and Sam Buchl for their help in curating the data. For their contributions and help in collecting the data, we thank Cindy Nelson and Karla Crocket at the Mayo Clinic and the SEIN-UMCU RESPect database group at the UMC Utrecht (C.J.J. van Asch, L. van de Berg, S. Blok, M.D. Bourez, K.P.J. Braun, J.W. Dankbaar, C.H. Ferrier, T.A. Gebbink, P.H. Gosselaar, M.G.G. Hobbelink, F.W.A. Hoefnagels, N.E.C. van Klink, M.A. van ‘t Klooster, G.A.P. de Kort, M.H.M. Mantione, A. Muhlebner, J.M. Ophorst, R. van Regteren, P.C. van Rijen, S.M.A. van der Salm, E.V. Schaft, M.M.J. van Schooneveld, H. Smeding, D. Sun, A. Velders, M.J.E. van Zandvoort, G.J.M. Zijlmans, E. Zuidhoek and J. Zwemmer).","ethics_approvals":["This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) and the Medical Ethical Committee from the University Medical Center Utrecht (The Netherlands)"],"references_and_links":["see HowToAcknowledge"],"associated_paper_meta":{"channel":"search","confidence":"high","author_overlap":10,"is_oa":true,"oa_status":"preprint","source":"paper_resolver"}}}