Rapid annotation of seizures and interictal-ictal-injury continuum EEG patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manual annotation of seizures and interictal-ictal-injury continuum (IIIC) patterns in continuous EEG (cEEG) recorded from critically ill patients is a time-intensive process for clinicians and researchers. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy and efficiency of an automated clustering method to accelerate expert annotation of cEEG. NEW METHOD: We learned a local dictionary from 97 ICU patients by applying k-medoids clustering to 592 features in the time and frequency domains. We utilized changepoint detection (CPD) to segment the cEEG recordings. We then computed a bag-of-words (BoW) representation for each segment. We further clustered the segments by affinity propagation. EEG experts scored the resulting clusters for each patient by labeling only the cluster medoids. We trained a random forest classifier to assess validity of the clusters. RESULTS: Mean pairwise agreement of 62.6% using this automated method was not significantly different from interrater agreements using manual labeling (63.8%), demonstrating the validity of the method. We also found that it takes experts using our method 5.31 ± 4.44 min to label the 30.19 ± 3.84 h of cEEG data, more than 45 times faster than unaided manual review, demonstrating efficiency. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Previous studies of EEG data labeling have generally yielded similar human expert interrater agreements, and lower agreements with automated methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that long EEG recordings can be rapidly annotated by experts many times faster than unaided manual review through the use of an advanced clustering method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".