MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001890362 · doi:10.1109/embc.2013.6610500

EEG seizure detection and epilepsy diagnosis using a novel variation of Empirical Mode Decomposition

2013· article· en· W2001890362 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Kaleem, Aziz Guergachi, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceFeature extractionEpilepsyClassifier (UML)Epileptic seizureSignal processingFeature selectionSpeech recognitionComputer visionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epileptic seizure detection and epilepsy diagnosis based on feature extraction and classification using electroencephalography (EEG) signals is an important area of research. In this paper, we present a simple and effective approach based on signal decomposition, using a novel variation of the Empirical Mode Decomposition called Empirical Mode Decomposition-Modified Peak Selection (EMD-MPS). EMD-MPS allows time-scale based de-trending of signals, allowing signals to be separated directly into a de-trended component, and a trend, according to a frequency separation criterion. Features are extracted from the decomposed components, and a simple classifier, namely the 1-NN classifier is used for three classification tasks. The technique is tested on a publicly available EEG database, and a classification accuracy of 99% for epilepsy diagnosis task, and 100% and 98.2% for two seizure detection tasks is obtained. These results are better than, or comparable to previous results using the same EEG database, but have been obtained with a simpler and computationally fast signal analysis and classification method.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207