MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025562761 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2012.2188399

Model-Based Seizure Detection for Intracranial EEG Recordings

2012· article· en· W2025562761 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Yadav, M.N.S. Swamy, Rajeev Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationEpileptic seizureA priori and a posterioriClassifier (UML)Feature extractionSpeech recognitionNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel model-based patient-specific method for automatic detection of seizures in the intracranial EEG recordings. The proposed method overcomes the complexities in the practical implementation of the patient-specific approach of seizure detection. The method builds a seizure model (set of basis functions) for a priori known seizure (the template seizure pattern), and uses the statistically optimal null filters as a building block for the detection of similar seizures. The process of modeling the template seizure is fully automatic. Overall, the detection method involves the segmentation of the template seizure pattern, rejection of the redundant and noisy segments, extraction of features from the segments to generate a set of models, selection of the best seizure model, and training of the classifier. The trained classifier is used to detect similar seizures in the remaining data. The resulting seizure detection method was evaluated on a total of 304 h of single-channel depth EEG recordings from 14 patients. The system performance is further compared to the Qu-Gotman patient-specific system using the same data. A significant improvement in the proposed system, in terms of specificity, is observed over the compared 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207