Algorithmic complexity of EEG for prognosis of neurodegeneration in idiopathic rapid eye movement behavior disorder (RBD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is a serious risk factor for neurodegenerative processes such as Parkinson’s disease (PD). We investigate the use of EEG algorithmic complexity derived metrics for its prognosis. Methods We analyzed resting state EEG data collected from 114 idiopathic RBD patients and 83 healthy controls in a longitudinal study forming a cohort in which several RBD patients developed PD or dementia with Lewy bodies. Multichannel data from ∼ 5 minute recordings was converted to spectrograms and their algorithmic complexity estimated using Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression (LZW). Results Complexity measures and entropy rate displayed statistically significant differences between groups. Results are compared to those using the ratio of slow to fast frequency power, which they are seen to complement by displaying increased sensitivity even when using a few EEG channels. Conclusions Poor prognosis in RBD appears to be associated with decreased complexity of EEG spectrograms stemming in part from frequency power imbalances and cross-frequency amplitude coupling. Significance Algorithmic complexity metrics provide a robust, powerful and complementary way to quantify the dynamics of EEG signals in RBD with links to emerging theories of brain function stemming from algorithmic information theory. Index Terms Biomarkers, EEG, LZW, PD, LBD
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".