MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353052315 · doi:10.18280/ts.400104

Investigation of Epileptic Seizure Signatures Classification in EEG Using Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms

2023· article· en· W4353052315 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saif Al‐jumaili, Adil Deniz Duru, Abdullahi Abdu İbrahim, Osman N. Uçan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpileptic seizureArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)EpilepsyAlgorithmMachine learningSpeech recognitionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy is one of the earnest neurological disorders that require further social attention. Based on the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), which classifies the epilepsy term as a number of several seizures that occur in the brain. Electroencephalography (EEG) is considered our brain window to the electrical activity. It is a significant device used for diagnosing multiple brain disorders such as Epilepsy. Moreover, this study used data from Temple University Hospital Seizure Corpus (TUH), which represents an accurate description of the clinical cases for five types of epileptic seizures. Initially, to extract information from EEG signals, three types of feature extraction have been used namely Fast Fourier Transform, Entropy, and Approximate Entropy. Due to the high degree of variance of EEG signals, we implemented a band-pass filter to divide the signals into sub-bands called delta rhythm (0.1 - 4Hz), theta rhythm (5 -9Hz), alpha rhythm (10 - 14Hz), beta rhythm (15- 31Hz), and gamma rhythm (32-100). The feature extraction outcome underwent normalization techniques and was used as input for the classifiers. Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Naive Bayes (NB), and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) classifier have implemented in order to classify (1) second epoch length window. In the first scenario, we applied the FFT features to the classifiers, the results showed that SVM obtained the highest value compared to the other classifiers with 96% accuracy, whereas KNN was 92% and the DT and NB were 76% and 67%, respectively. The second scenario was applying entropy features to the classifiers, the results of classification were 91% for SVM and 88% for KNN, while the DT and NB were 76% and 67%, respectively. The last scenario was ApEn, which shows that SVM still gains the highest value, which was 83%, and 76% for KNN, where the DT and NB were 65% and 69%, respectively. From the aforementioned results, we deduced that SVM achieved the best accuracy when applied with the three feature extractions.

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 score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207