MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feature Extraction to Identify Depression and Anxiety Based on EEG

2021· article· en· W4200073432 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyElectroencephalographyMoodCorrelationNeurophysiologyDepression (economics)CognitionAlpha (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomarkers in neurophysiological signals can be analyzed to determine indicators of mood disorders for diagnosis. In this paper, EEG signals were analyzed from a public database of 119 subjects ages 18 to 24 performing a cognitive task. 45 subjects had moderate to severe anxiety and/or depression and the remaining 74 subjects had minimal or none. A subject's level of depression and/or anxiety was classified by standard psychological tests. EEG signals were preprocessed and separated into frequency bands: beta (12-30 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz) and delta (0.5-4 Hz). Features were extracted including Higuchi Fractal Dimension, correlation dimension, approximate entropy, Lyapunov exponent and detrended fluctuation analysis. Similarities, and asymmetry can be examined between the left and right brain hemispheres as well as the prefrontal cortex channels. ANOVA II analysis showed a significant difference (p<0.05) for topographical region comparisons of several features between the affected and unaffected subjects for specific features. The results demonstrate physiological asymmetry between high scoring subjects indicating a mood disorder, with low scoring, to be used as an indicator of illness. Understanding the complexities of how depression and anxiety are manifested physiologically including its comorbidities, is critical for accurate and objective diagnosis of mood and anxiety order disorders.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine &amp; Biology Society (EMBC)Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207