Deep learning with EEG spectrograms in rapid eye movement behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract REM Behavior Disorder (RBD) is now recognized as the prodromal stage of α -synucleinopathies such as Parkinson’s disease (PD). In this paper, we describe deep learning models for diagnosis/prognosis derived from a few minutes of eyes-closed resting electroencephalography data (EEG) collected from idiopathic RBD patients (n=121) and healthy controls (HC, n=91). A few years after the EEG acquisition (4 ± 2 years), a subset of the RBD patients eventually developed either PD (n=14) or Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB, n=13), while the rest remained idiopathic. We describe first a simple convolutional neural network (DCNN) with a five-layer architecture combining filtering and pooling, which we train using stacked multi-channel EEG spectrograms. We treat the data as in audio or image classification problems where deep networks have proven highly successful by exploiting compositional and translationally invariant features in the data. For comparison, we study an even simpler deep recurrent neural network using three stacked Long Short Term Memory network (LSTM) cells or gated-recurrent unit (GRU) cells—with very similar results. The performance of these networks typically reaches 80% (±1%) classification accuracy in the balanced HC vs. PD-outcome classification problem. In particular, using data from a single EEG channel we obtain an area under the curve (AUC) of 87% (±1%) while avoiding spectral feature selection. The trained classifier can also be used to generate synthetic spectrograms to study what spectrogram features are relevant for classification, pointing to the presence of theta band bursts and a decrease of power in the alpha band in future PD or DLB patients compared to HCs. We conclude that deep networks may provide a key tool for the analysis of EEG dynamics even from relatively small datasets and enable the delivery of new biomarkers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".