MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2000363394 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6090381

Capturing the state transitions of seizure-like events using Hidden Markov models

2011· article· en· W2000363394 on OpenAlexaff
Mirna Guirgis, Demitre Serletis, Peter L. Carlen, Berj L. Bardakjian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHidden Markov modelMarkov chainMarkov processState (computer science)Markov modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the number of states present in the progression of a seizure-like event (SLE). Of particular interest is to determine if there are more than two clearly defined states, as this would suggest that there is a distinct state preceding an SLE. Whole-intact hippocampus from C57/BL mice was used to model epileptiform activity induced by the perfusion of a low Mg(2+)/high K(+) solution while extracellular field potentials were recorded from CA3 pyramidal neurons. Hidden Markov models (HMM) were used to model the state transitions of the recorded SLEs by incorporating various features of the Hilbert transform into the training algorithm; specifically, 2- and 3-state HMMs were explored. Although the 2-state model was able to distinguish between SLE and nonSLE behavior, it provided no improvements compared to visual inspection alone. However, the 3-state model was able to capture two distinct nonSLE states that visual inspection failed to discriminate. Moreover, by developing an HMM based system a priori knowledge of the state transitions was not required making this an ideal platform for seizure prediction algorithms.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→