MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058654644 · doi:10.1109/51.956816

Long-term EEG compression for intensive-care settings

2001· article· en· W2058654644 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Agarwal, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyComputer scienceComa (optics)Identification (biology)Adaptation (eye)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors have presented a method that can be potentially used for records of any duration, with any number of channels, any number of channel groupings (different topologies), and in a variety of situation (ICU, sleep, coma, etc.). Unlike methods such as compressed spectral arrays, the proposed method presents samples of original EEG that represent the long-term EEG along with their temporal distribution. Because the actual EEG is presented to the user, no new interpretive skills are required and the method can be employed by anyone familiar with EEG. Moreover, the simple graphical display allows a non-EEG specialist to identify abnormal changes-the emergence of focal changes, bursts or sustained asymmetries, gradual or sudden changes, and cycling of EEG patterns. Quick identification of problems will allow such personnel to contact the EEG specialist for a detailed assessment. The compact nature of the resulting display allows the compressed results to be transmitted via modem or fax to the EEGer at a remote site for an initial assessment of the urgency of the situation. It is important to note that the proposed method is intended to provide a summary of the EEG and should be used to supplement the EEG. It is not intended to replace usual EEG interpretation. The authors' have thus far examined the feasibility of this method in an offline application. Clearly, it will be most advantageous when used online. The authors' future work involves the adaptation of this method for online application.

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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology MagazineSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207