The GREENBEAN checklist for reporting studies evaluating the effectiveness of EEG-based biomarkers
- PMID: 40554380
- PMCID: PMC12302412
- DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2025.2110777
The GREENBEAN checklist for reporting studies evaluating the effectiveness of EEG-based biomarkers
Abstract
Advances in digital technology, signal analysis, and data science have led to a rapid increase in papers reporting EEG-based biomarkers. However, wide heterogeneity in study design and reporting poses challenges in assessing the reliability, validity and utility of these biomarkers. In this evolving field, best practices are sometimes debated but not yet rigorously defined, and the appropriate next step is to ensure that validation-focused research manuscripts report key methodological factors that are known or suspected to influence results. To assist authors in designing and reporting validation studies of EEG biomarkers, and to help editors and regulatory bodies evaluate them, an international working group-under the auspices of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) and in collaboration with the EQUATOR Network-developed the Guidelines for Reporting EEG/Neurophysiology Biomarker Evaluation for Application to Neurology and Neuropsychiatry (GREENBEAN). EEG biomarker validation studies are classified into four phases, similarly to therapeutic studies. Phases 1-2 are preliminary and do not constitute formal validation. Phase 3 studies provide compelling evidence of validity, while phase 4 studies assess the clinical utility and generalizability of previously validated biomarkers within real-world settings. We provide detailed definitions for each phase, along with a checklist of items to address and report. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is included in Supplementary Material with multiple examples of how to design and report EEG biomarker studies. We expect that more transparent reporting regarding experimental design and technical standards will not only enhance short-term biomarker validation efforts but will also enhance methodological research to make future efforts more efficient and effective.
Keywords: Bias; Biomarker validation; EEG; EQUATOR; Psychometrics; Reporting standard.
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JBE has consulted for Novartis on biomarker development. LEE has consulted for Novartis, Tetra Therapeutics a Shionogi Company, Healx, Ultragenyx, Autifony Therapeutics, and Purposeful on EEG biomarker outcome measurement. AI Belongs to the Department of Epilepsy, Movement Disorders, and Physiology is the Industry-Academia Collaboration Course, being supported by Eisai Co., Ltd., Nihon Kohden Corporation, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Sumitomo Pharma, and RICOH Company. MS owns shares CloudsofCare and dEEGtal and received speaker fees from Bial and EISAI.
References
-
- Abi-Dargham A, Horga G. The search for imaging biomarkers in psychiatric disorders. Nat Med. 2016;22:1248–55. - PubMed
-
- American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Quantitative Electrophysiological Assessment. Quantitative electroencephalography: a report on the present state of computerized EEG techniques. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:961–4. - PubMed
-
- Amur SG, Sanyal S, Chakravarty AG, Noone MH, Kaiser J, McCune S, et al. Building a roadmap to biomarker qualification: challenges and opportunities. Biomark Med. 2015;9:1095–105. - PubMed
-
- Berger H On the Electroencephalogram of Man: Twelfth Report. Electroencep clin Neurophysiol. 1969;Suppl. 28:267–87. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
