MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089225551 · doi:10.1159/000117446

Quantitative EEG and Statistical Mapping of Wakefulness and REM Sleep in the Evaluation of Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease

2008· article· en· W2089225551 on OpenAlexaff
Farid Hassainia, Dominique Petit, Toré Nielsen, Serge Gauthier, J. Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakefulnessElectroencephalographyAudiologyPsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseSleep (system call)NeuroscienceBETA (programming language)MedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical probability mapping was used to quantify and localize EEG differences between 27 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 25 age- and gener-matched controls. Differences in mean activity in four EEG frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta) for wakefulness and for REM sleep were examined, t-statistic maps clearly highlighted common pattern anomalies in AD patients in the two states. More specifically, Alzheimer patients were more affected than control subjects in parieto-temporal and frontal regions. These differences were more prominent in REM sleep and consisted primarily in an increase in absolute delta and theta activities, and a decrease in absolute alpha and beta activities. Discriminant analysis, using a ratio of slow over fast frequencies, yielded a classification rate of 90.4% (sensitivity 81.5%, specificity 100%) for REM sleep. For wakefulness, the same measure allowed correct classification of 80.8% of the subjects (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 96%).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations67
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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