MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603246961 · doi:10.3233/jad-140468

A Theta-Band EEG Based Index for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

2014· article· en· W1603246961 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Esteve Gallego-Jutglà, Jordi Solé‐Casals, François Vialatte, Justin Dauwels, Andrzej Cichocki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsElectroencephalographyDiscriminative modelAudiologyDiseasePsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseFeature (linguistics)Cognitive impairmentCognitionNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite recent advances, early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) from electroencephalography (EEG) remains a difficult task. In this paper, we offer an added measure through which such early diagnoses can potentially be improved. One feature that has been used for discriminative classification is changes in EEG synchrony. So far, only the decrease of synchrony in the higher frequencies has been deeply analyzed. In this paper, we investigate the increase of synchrony found in narrow frequency ranges within the θ band. This particular increase of synchrony is used with the well-known decrease of synchrony in the α band to enhance detectable differences between AD patients and healthy subjects. We propose a new synchrony ratio that maximizes the differences between two populations. The ratio is tested using two different data sets, one of them containing mild cognitive impairment patients and healthy subjects, and another one, containing mild AD patients and healthy subjects. The results presented in this paper show that classification rate is improved, and the statistical difference between AD patients and healthy subjects is increased using the proposed ratio.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207