MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101678986 · doi:10.1109/ais.2010.5547053

Automated epileptic seizure onset detection

2010· article· en· W2101678986 on OpenAlexaff
Arvind Dorai, K. Ponnambalam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIctalEpilepsyEpileptic seizureElectroencephalographyNeurological disorderNeurosciencePsychologyComputer scienceCentral nervous system disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy is a serious neurological disorder characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures due to abnormal or excessive neuronal activity in the brain. An estimated 50 million people around the world suffer from this condition, and it is classified as the second most serious neurological disease known to humanity, after stroke. With early and accurate detection of seizures, doctors can gain valuable time to administer medications and other such anti-seizure countermeasures to help reduce the damaging effects of this crippling disorder. The time-varying dynamics and high inter-individual variability make early prediction of the seizure state a challenging task. Many studies have shown that EEG signals do have valuable information that, if correctly analyzed, could help in the prediction of seizures in epileptic patients before their occurrence. Several mathematical transforms have been analyzed for its correlation with seizure onset prediction, and a series of experiments were done to certify their strengths. New algorithms are presented to help clarify, monitor, and cross-validate the classification of EEG signals to predict the ictal (i.e. seizure) states, specifically the preictal, interictal, and postictal states in the brain. These new methods show promising results in detecting the presence of a preictal phase prior to the ictal state.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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