MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147716763 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2012.2190601

Morphology-Based Automatic Seizure Detector for Intracerebral EEG Recordings

2012· article· en· W2147716763 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Yadav, Aashit Shah, Jeffrey A. Loeb, M.N.S. Swamy, Rajeev Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsElectroencephalographyWaveformSensitivity (control systems)Channel (broadcasting)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEpilepsyAudiologySpeech recognitionNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineElectronic engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new seizure detection system aimed at assisting in a rapid review of prolonged intracerebral EEG recordings is described. It is based on quantifying the sharpness of the waveform, one of the most important electrographic EEG features utilized by experts for an accurate and reliable identification of a seizure. The waveform morphology is characterized by a measure of sharpness as defined by the slope of the half-waves. A train of abnormally sharp waves resulting from subsequent filtering are used to identify seizures. The method was optimized using 145 h of single-channel depth EEG from seven patients, and tested on another 158 h of single-channel depth EEG from another seven patients. Additionally, 725 h of depth EEG from 21 patients was utilized to assess the system performance in a multichannel configuration. Single-channel test data resulted in a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 71%. The multichannel test data reported a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 58.9%. The new system detected a wide range of seizure patterns that included rhythmic and nonrhythmic seizures of varying length, including those missed by the experts. We also compare the proposed system with a popular commercial system.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207