MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140992555 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2008.4649302

A novel dual-stage classifier for automatic detection of epileptic seizures

2008· article· en· W2140992555 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
KeywordsClassifier (UML)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceElectroencephalographyFeature extractionFalse positive rateEpileptic seizureNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In long-term monitoring of electroencephalogram (EEG) for epilepsy, it is crucial for the seizure detection systems to have high sensitivity and low false detections to reduce uninteresting and redundant data that may be stored for review by the medical experts. However, a large number of features and the complex decision boundaries for classification of seizures eventually lead to a trade-off between sensitivity and false detection rate (FDR). Thus, no single classifier can fulfill the requirements of high sensitivity with a low FDR and at the same time be a computationally efficient system suitable for real-time application. We present a novel, simple, computationally efficient seizure detection system to enhance the sensitivity with a low FDR by proposing a dual-stage classifier. This overall system consists of a pre-processing unit, a feature extraction unit and a novel dual-stage classifier. The first stage of the proposed classifier detects all true seizures, but also many false patterns, whereas the second stage of the proposed classifier minimizes false detections by rejecting patterns that may be artifacts. The performance of the novel seizure detection system has been evaluated on 300 hours of single-channel depth electroencephalogram (SEEG) recordings obtained from fifteen patients. An overall improvement has been observed in terms of sensitivity, specificity and FDR.

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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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