MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137325814 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.2007.4488544

Detection of epileptic seizures in stereo-EEG using frequency-weighted energy

2007· article· en· W2137325814 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Yadav, Rajeev Agarwal, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyElectroencephalographyEpileptic seizureEpilepsyComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Sensitivity (control systems)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceA priori and a posterioriTime–frequency analysisMathematicsComputer visionStatisticsPsychologyIctalNeuroscienceElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new algorithm for seizure detection based on the evolution-like characteristics of a seizure. Most of the existing algorithms for automatic detection of the epileptic seizures in electroencephalograms (EEG) rely upon some pre-defined/patient-tunable detection threshold to classify the data as normal or abnormal. In this paper, we present a method for seizure detection in stereoencephalograms (SEEG) using frequency-weighted energy. The method does not require a threshold or any a priori information about the seizure for its detection. The method is gradient-based and any activity that exceeds the minimum duration satisfying our criteria is considered as a potential seizure activity. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated on 100 hours of single channel SEEG data obtained from five different patients. An overall sensitivity of 96.6% and a false detection rate of 0.21/h is obtained on the complete data.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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