MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High performance EEG feature extraction for fast epileptic seizure detection

2017· article· en· W2793067019 on OpenAlexaff
Ramy Hussein, Mohamed Elgendi, Rabab Ward, Amr Mohamed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyEpilepsyFeature extractionEpileptic seizurePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceRandom forestArtificial intelligenceLasso (programming language)Speech recognitionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects around 70 million people worldwide. Early detection of epileptic seizures has the potential to help patients in improving their quality of life. Electroencephalogram (EEG) has been used to record the brain's electrical activities associated with seizures. This paper presents a fast method for selecting EEG features that are relevant to early detection of epileptic seizures. The feature extraction model is based on LASSO regression and is applied to the EEG spectrum to recognize the EEG spectral features pertinent to seizures. These features are then selected and fed into a random forest (RF) classifier for epileptic seizure recognition. Compared to the state-of-the-art methods, the proposed scheme achieves the highest detection performance of 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% classification accuracy, and 1.18 Sec detection delay. Furthermore, our model has proven to be robust in noisy and abnormal conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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