MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385956640 · doi:10.1145/3608251.3608292

Exploring the Efficacy of Explainable Deep Learning in Identifying Neuromarkers for Precise Prediction of Epilepsy and Causal Connectivity Analysis

2023· article· en· W4385956640 on OpenAlexaff
Vishwambhar Pathak, Vivek Gaur, Prabhat Mahanti, Satish Chandra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIctalPattern recognition (psychology)Autoregressive modelFalse discovery rateFeature extractionPreprocessorElectroencephalographyDeep learningConvolutional neural networkMathematicsStatisticsNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Causal connectivity among the brain regions have been recently exploited information for discriminating epileptiforms to detect epileptic seizures. Published investigations to detect ictal, interictal, preictal EEG reported existence of long-range correlations of excitations within a functionally connected brain region and shifting of focus of excitations from one region to another region and increase or decrease of intensity in certain frequency-bands, which can be quantified using suitable measure of Granger causality (GC). Deep neural networks obviated explicit preprocessing and feature extraction. The proposed work employs temporal dilated convolutional network to estimate causal connectivity relations among brain-regions in various frequency-bands in distributed manner. It implicitly learns varying autoregressive-lag-orders using stacked layers and covers long range relationships using exponential update of layer-wise dilation-factor. Model training with several parameter-combinations were conducted over 10 subjects. The proposed model outperformed the existing approaches and baseline model in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and false positive rate. Class-wise dominating features were obtained using statistical significance analysis followed by family wise error rate correction using Benjamini-Hochberg 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207