MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097627736 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.187

STFT-Based Segmentation in Model-Based Seizure Detection

2007· article· en· W2097627736 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Yadav, Rajeev Agarwal, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFalse positive paradoxArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)ElectroencephalographyShort-time Fourier transformSegmentationEpileptic seizureSpeech recognitionFourier transformFourier analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To aid the review of long-term electroencephalograph (EEG), it is necessary to develop automatic seizure detection methods. In the literature, numerous seizure detection methods based on parameterization of the EEG have been presented. Recently a new patient-specific model-based method using Statistically Optimal Null Filters (SONF) has been proposed for seizure detection [1], This method uses stationary segments of a template seizure to generate the necessary seizure model (basis functions) that is used for all subsequent seizure detections. In this approach, the necessary stationary segments within the template are manually identified based on the constancy of the dominant rhythm. The manual selection of stationary segments is cumbersome in practice. In this paper, we present short-time-Fourier-transform (STFT) based automatic segmentation of template seizure resulting in practically usable model-based seizure detection. To assess the performance of the proposed algorithm, a comparison with the visual (manual) method of epoch selection on simulated as well as on the template seizures of five different patients is done. The overall performance improvements are evident in terms of enhanced seizure detection sensitivity and reduced number of false positives.

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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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