MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070728313 · doi:10.1109/ner.2013.6695868

Data reduction for wireless seizure detection systems

2013· article· en· W2070728313 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce Chiang, Rabab Ward

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkElectroencephalographyReal-time computingWirelessFeature extractionReduction (mathematics)Epileptic seizureBattery (electricity)Energy consumptionSensitivity (control systems)Power (physics)Artificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringComputer networkEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless electroencephalogram (EEG) systems have become an increasingly important tool for the diagnosis and management of epilepsy. One major consideration in using such a wireless EEG-based system is the stringent battery energy constraint at the sensor side. Different solutions to reduce the power consumption are therefore highly desired. Conventionally, the entire EEG signals acquired by the sensor nodes are continuously streamed to an external data server (where seizure detection is carried out). Such approach incurs a high power consumption, which substantially limits the battery life of the sensor node. In this study, we examine the use of data reduction techniques, including compressive sensing-based EEG compression and various low-complexity feature extraction techniques, for reducing the amount of data that has to be transmitted and thereby reducing the required power consumption at the sensor side. The performance of such techniques is evaluated in terms of power consumption and seizure detection efficacy. Results show that by extracting and transmitting only the nonlinear autocorrelation features of the EEG signals to the server, the battery life of the system is increased by 14 times relative to the conventional approach of transmitting the entire EEG signals, while the same seizure detection performance is maintained (94.1% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207