Which Multivariate Multi-Scale Entropy Algorithm Is More Suitable for Analyzing the EEG Characteristics of Mild Cognitive Impairment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far, most articles using the multivariate multi-scale entropy algorithm mainly use algorithms to analyze the multivariable signal complexity without clearly describing what characteristics of signals these algorithms measure and what factors affect these algorithms. This paper analyzes six commonly used multivariate multi-scale entropy algorithms from a new perspective. It clarifies for the first time what characteristics of signals these algorithms measure and which factors affect them. It also studies which algorithm is more suitable for analyzing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) electroencephalograph (EEG) signals. The simulation results show that the multivariate multi-scale sample entropy (mvMSE), multivariate multi-scale fuzzy entropy (mvMFE), and refined composite multivariate multi-scale fuzzy entropy (RCmvMFE) algorithms can measure intra- and inter-channel correlation and multivariable signal complexity. In the joint analysis of coupling and complexity, they all decrease with the decrease in signal complexity and coupling strength, highlighting their advantages in processing related multi-channel signals, which is a discovery in the simulation. Among them, the RCmvMFE algorithm can better distinguish different complexity signals and correlations between channels. It also performs well in anti-noise and length analysis of multi-channel data simultaneously. Therefore, we use the RCmvMFE algorithm to analyze EEG signals from twenty subjects (eight control subjects and twelve MCI subjects). The results show that the MCI group had lower entropy than the control group on the short scale and the opposite on the long scale. Moreover, frontal entropy correlates significantly positively with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score and Auditory Verbal Learning Test delayed recall score on the short scale.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".