PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Guilherme Wood
AU  - Klaus Willmes
AU  - Jan Willem Koten
AU  - Silvia Erika Kober
TI  - Fat tails, fat earnings, fat mistakes: On the need to disclose distribution parameters of qEEG databases
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.23.22272823
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.23.22272823
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/23/2022.03.23.22272823.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/23/2022.03.23.22272823.full
AB  - Neurometry (a.k.a. quantitative EEG or qEEG) is a popular method to assess clinically relevant abnormalities in the electroencephalogram. Neurometry is based on norm values for the distribution of specific EEG parameters and believed to show good psychometric properties such as test-retest reliability. Many psychometric properties only hold under the Gaussian distribution and become problematic when distributions are fat-tailed. EEG signals are typically fat-tailed and do not show fast convergence to a Gaussian distribution. To circumvent this property of EEG, log-transformations have frequently, but not always been employed. In Monte Carlo simulations, we investigated the impact of fat-tails (i.e. deviations from Gaussian) on the cut-off criteria and changeability of what in neurometry is termed “abnormal EEG”. Even slight deviations from the Gaussian distribution as measured by skewness and kurtosis lead to large inflation in the number of false positive qEEG findings. The more stringent the cutoff value adopted, the larger the inflation. For these reasons, we argue that distribution properties of qEEG databases should be disclosed in much more detail to avoid questionable research practices and promote diagnostic transparency. Moreover, “abnormal EEG” seems to recover spontaneously at rates not compatible with the alleged test-retest reliability of qEEG. Alternative methods should be employed to determine cut-off values for diagnostics purposes, since a large number of false positive results emerge even when slight deviations from the Gaussian distribution are present. We provide recommendations for the improvement of psychometric properties of existing qEEG databases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesR software scripts can be made available to reproduce the resuls presented in the ms.