MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retraction Notice: A Non-Linear Support Vector Machine Approach to Testing for Migraine with Aura Using Electroencephalography

2017· article· en· W4389474469 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Garingo, Farhang Sahba, Weijing Ma, Mark Doidge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineElectroencephalographyIctalComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)MigraineMigraine with auraArtificial intelligenceAuraFeature selectionSpeech recognitionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a new migraine analysis method is proposed using EEG (electroencephalography) signals to characterize migraine patients with aura (MwA). The objective of this work is to implement a technique for characterizing and extracting significant, robust and informative features from EEG signals which are representative of the interictal migraine brain state. We extract three brain characteristics using brain network analysis of alpha phase synchronization; transient abnormality analysis using wavelet scale; and finally joint time-frequency analysis using AR modeling. Feature selection and reduction techniques were performed on the sub-features of these three mutually independent features, to combat the over-fit problem as well as to maximize the generality of the classifier. Interpretation of the reduced features resembled to previous migraine studies. Furthermore, extracted features were used as inputs to a 10-fold cross validated non-linear support vector machine (SVM) classifier. The results showed a 92.9% classification accuracy for MwA in the interictal stage from the normal control (NC) group. Findings suggest electrical features for the predisposition of migraine which can lead to possible preventative interventions in the future.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrity

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207