Comparison of Classification Models Using Entropy Based Features from Sub-bands of EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to distinguish between different epileptic states automatically in an EEG.The work focuses on distinguishing activity of a controlled patient from interictal and ictal activity and also from each other.Publically available Bonn database is used in this study.Seven such cases are considered.For this study three entropy features: approximate entropy, sample entropy and fuzzy approximate entropy are extracted from frequency sub-bands and are used with six classification algorithms which are Naive Bayes, LDA (Linear Discriminant Analysis), QDA(Quadratic Discriminant Analysis) from the generative group and RF(Random Forest), GB(Gradient Boosting) and Ada Boost from the ensemble group.The performance is evaluated on basis ofClassification accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity.The results obtained direct that LDA as a classifier from the generative class and Ada boost from the ensemble group has outperformed other classifiers achieving the highest classification accuracies for three cases each respectively.Evaluating the results from sub-bands, we find out that D2 (21.7-43.4Hz) sub-band clearly outperformed all the bands.Among the entropies used as features from sub bands, sample entropy outperforms the other entropies.From the results obtained it is established that frequency features from higher sub-band such as D2 (21.7-43.4Hz) contain substantial information which can be used for identification of epileptic discharges which are however missed during visual analysis.This shows the impact automated methods can make in the field of identification of ictal and inter-ictal activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".