MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107678213 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1616628

Automatic Detection of Micro-Arousals

2005· article· en· W2107678213 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Agarwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysomnogramElectroencephalographyComputer scienceFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)ArousalFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSleep (system call)Speech recognitionSensitivity (control systems)Identification (biology)PolysomnographyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients suffering from various sleep disorders and some elderly patients, sleep is disturbed with frequent but brief arousal. These events do not cause behavioral awakening, but can lead to excessive day time sleepiness. These brief arousals or microarousals (MAs) can be identified on a standard polysomnogram as a transient abrupt change of frequency, typically in the alpha and extended beta (16-40 Hz) bands. In this paper, we present a novel method to automatically detect MAs. The method is based on using the ideas of segmentation, spectral feature extraction and the identification of EEG epochs containing MA with statistical methods and decisional rules. Full-night EEG recordings from two patients are used to present some initial performance results. For this analysis, the MA events are independently scored by three experienced sleep experts. Results show the method to be promising; however, due to the large inter-scorer variations it may be necessary to tailor the detection threshold to address the varying scorer preferences (address the sensitivity/specificity tradeoffs).

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 score0.204

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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