MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982932428 · doi:10.1177/1550059413488107

Electroencephalogram Analysis

2013· article· en· W1982932428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li-tang Zhang, Suxia Zhang, Songdi Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceElectroencephalographyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitive impairmentInternal medicineNeurologyCognitionCardiologyBrain functionAudiologyAnesthesiaPsychologyPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral hemorrhage may cause cognitive dysfunction. Electroencephalogram (EEG) is a noninvasive diagnostic tool for assessment of cerebral function. A total of 174 patients (including cognitively impaired and cognitively normal) with cerebral hemorrhage, and 120 healthy persons (CN), were recruited between August 2008 and July 2012 at the Department of Neurology. EEG was used to analyze cerebral function of patients and normal persons. Correlation, clustering and concordance analyses were performed to analyze the relationship between EEG power and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores. Cognitively impaired patients had a significantly decreased EEG beta power (0.793 ± 0.176 µV(2)) compared with cognitively normal patients (1.589 ± 0.205 µV(2), P < .01) or healthy persons (1.651 ± 0.185 µV(2), P < .01). Significantly negative correlations between beta power and hemorrhage region, size, amount, and patients' age were apparent (r = -0.91888, -0.78569, -0.84961, and -0.80365, respectively, all Ps < .001). There was good concordance between the K-means clustering algorithm calculating beta power and MoCA scoring (κ = .904, P < .001). In conclusion, the analysis method of EEG (beta power) abnormalities holds considerable promise to assess cognitive impairment after cerebral hemorrhage. Cognitive impairment was negatively correlated to hemorrhage region, size, amount, and age.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207