MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007686085 · doi:10.1117/12.2550234

Combined low-frequency EEG and NIRS during hypoxia

2020· article· en· W3007686085 on OpenAlexaff
Shahbaz Askari, Zoya Bastany, Liisa Holsti, Ali Gorji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyBreathingNeurophysiologyHypoxia (environmental)Biomedical engineeringNeuroscienceMedicineAnesthesiaChemistryOxygenPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroencephalography (EEG) and cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) are both well-known monitoring methods to quantify cerebral neurophysiology and hemodynamics states of the brain. A stable regulatory system operates to guarantee sufficient spatial and temporal distribution of energy substrates for ongoing neuronal activity. Most EEG signals are associated with the neural activity of an enormous number of neurons that are interconnected and firing concurrently. The conventional EEG bandwidth is 0.16Hz to 70Hz. In this study, the EEG recording bandwidth is extended in low frequency (0.016Hz to 70Hz) by using a novel EEG amplifier. We aimed to investigate the low-frequency EEG and brain tissue deoxygenation by using novel multi-modal measurements. We used combined NIRS and EEG measurements for estimating the electrophysiological activity and hemodynamic changes in the adult human forehead during a hypoxic breathing condition. For the experiment, an altitude simulation kit was used to restrict the concentration of oxygen in the air that was inhaled by the subjects. The hypoxic breathing conditions led to variations in CO2 concentration (pCO2). Prolong (low-frequency) EEG signal shift, accompanied by an increase of deoxygenated hemoglobin during simulated hypoxic breathing were observed in this experiment.

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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207