MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982383103 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52152-2

Bispectrum and Recurrent Neural Networks: Improved Classification of Interictal and Preictal States

2019· article· en· W2982383103 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Gagliano, Elie Bou Assi, Dang Khoa Nguyen, Mohamad Sawan

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Valorisation des Données
KeywordsBispectrumIctalPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkPerceptronElectroencephalographyEpilepsyFeature (linguistics)Multilayer perceptronFeature extractionRecurrent neural networkSpeech recognitionNeurosciencePsychologySpectral density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work proposes a novel approach for the classification of interictal and preictal brain states based on bispectrum analysis and recurrent Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks. Two features were first extracted from bilateral intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) recordings of dogs with naturally occurring focal epilepsy. Single-layer LSTM networks were trained to classify 5-min long feature vectors as preictal or interictal. Classification performances were compared to previous work involving multilayer perceptron networks and higher-order spectral (HOS) features on the same dataset. The proposed LSTM network proved superior to the multilayer perceptron network and achieved an average classification accuracy of 86.29% on held-out data. Results imply the possibility of forecasting epileptic seizures using recurrent neural networks, with minimal feature extraction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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