MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382630735 · doi:10.3233/shti230426

Multi-Class Seizure Type Classification Using Features Extracted from the EEG

2023· article· en· W4382630735 on OpenAlexaff
Abirami Selvaraj, Swarubini PJ, John Thomas, Ramshekhar N. Menon, Jac Fredo Agastinose Ronickom

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFeature extractionClassifier (UML)Time domainComputer scienceFrequency domainEpileptic seizureSeizure typesSpeech recognitionPsychologyNeuroscienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we classify the seizure types using feature extraction and machine learning algorithms. Initially, we pre-processed the electroencephalogram (EEG) of focal non-specific seizure (FNSZ), generalized seizure (GNSZ), tonic-clonic seizure (TCSZ), complex partial seizure (CPSZ) and absence seizure (ABSZ). Further, 21 features from time (9) and frequency (12) domain were computed from the EEG signals of different seizure types. XGBoost classifier model was built for individual domain features and combination of time and frequency features and validated the results using 10-fold cross-validation. Our results revealed that the classifier model with combination of time and frequency features performed well followed by the time and frequency domain features. We obtained a highest multi-class accuracy of 79.72% for the classification of five types of seizure while using all the 21 features. The band power between 11-13 Hz was found to be the top feature in our study. The proposed study can be used for the seizure type classification in clinical applications.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207