A comparison of algorithms for detection of spikes in the electroencephalogram
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of the short transient waveform, called a spike, in the cortical electroencephalogram (EEG) plays an important role during diagnosis of neurological disorders such as epilepsy. It has been suggested that artificial neural networks (ANN) can be employed for spike detection in the EEG, if suitable features are provided as input to an ANN. In this paper, we explore the performance of neural network-based classifiers using features selected by algorithms suggested by four previous investigators. Of these, three algorithms model the spike by mathematical parameters and use them as features for classification while the fourth algorithm uses raw EEG to train the classifier. The objective of this paper is to examine if there is any inherent advantage to any particular set of features, subject to the condition that the same data are used for all feature selection algorithms. Our results suggest that artificial neural networks trained with features selected using any one of the above three algorithms as well as raw EEG directly fed to the ANN will yield similar results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it