MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390194311 · doi:10.1002/alz.076924

Beta to Theta Power Ratio in Electroencephalogram Periodic Components to Discriminate Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Dementia

2023· article· en· W4390194311 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Azami, Christoph Zrenner, Heather Brooks, Reza Zomorrodi, Daniel M. Blumberger, Corinne E. Fischer, Alastair J. Flint, Nathan Herrmann, Sanjeev Kumar, Krista L. Lanctôt, Linda Mah, Benoit H. Mulsant, Bruce G. Pollock, Tarek K. Rajji

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteToronto Dementia Research AllianceUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & HealthCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyAperiodic graphDementiaAudiologyReceiver operating characteristicPsychologyBETA (programming language)Logistic regressionAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive impairmentCognitionInternal medicineNeuroscienceMathematicsMedicineDiseaseCombinatoricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are often associated with abnormalities in full power spectrum of electroencephalogram (EEG), including the ratio of beta/theta. Full spectrum EEG consists of aperiodic and periodic components with the latter being better associated with cognition. We investigated whether the aperiodic and periodic power components of EEGs are disrupted differently in individuals with MCI vs. AD vs. healthy controls (HC), and whether a periodic based beta/theta ratio better differentiates the three groups than a ratio based on the full spectrum. Method Data were collected in 199 participants ‐ 44 with HC (mean (SD) age: 69.1 (5.3) years), 114 with MCI (72.3 (7.5)), and 41 with AD (75.6 (6.5)). We cleaned the data using a band‐pass filter with cut‐off frequencies 1 and 45 Hz and then independent component analysis. We then used the “fooof” toolbox to decompose the EEGs into their aperiodic and periodic components. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) of a logistic regression classifier to distinguish HC from MCI and AD participants, and MCI from AD participants, using beta/theta ratios based on the periodic power spectrum vs. full power spectrum. Result There was an increase in full spectrum powers for delta, theta, and gamma, and a decrease of relative power for beta in AD participants compared to HC and MCI participants. In contrast, there were no differences in aperiodic background EEG components among HC, MCI, and AD participants. Overall, the periodic and full spectrum comparisons among the three groups were comparable except for the periodic based analysis that showed a difference between MCI and HC in the occipital beta/theta ratio (Bonferroni corrected p = 0.036). Classifiers based on beta/theta power ratio in EEG periodic components distinguished AD from HC and MCI with high AUCROC values (0.94 and 0.83, respectively), and outperformed classifiers based on beta/theta power ratio in EEG all oscillations (0.078 and 0.67, respectively). Conclusion This study supports an advantage of a periodic based analysis over a full EEG spectrum analysis and the use of occipital beta/theta power ratio based on periodic components as a screening tool for AD.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207