MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391019651 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2024.3355956

Resting State EEG Variability and Implications for Interpreting Clinical Effect Sizes

2024· article· en· W4391019651 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Liu, Cidnee Luu, Lyndia C. Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsElectroencephalographySample entropyMorningSample size determinationQuantitative electroencephalographyResting state fMRIAudiologyStandard deviationStatisticsPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceMathematicsInternal medicineTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resting state electroencephalography (rsEEG) is widely used to investigate intrinsic brain activity, with the potential for detecting neurophysiological abnormalities in clinical conditions from neurodegenerative disease to developmental disorders. When interpreting quantitative rsEEG changes, a key question is: how much deviation from a healthy normal brain state indicates a clinically significant change? Here, we build on the existing rsEEG variability literature by quantifying how this baseline rsEEG range can be attributed to common but underinvestigated sources of variability: experiment day, time of day, and pre-recording exercise level. We found that even within individuals, frequency band powers and entropy measures can vary by 7% (sample entropy and relative alpha power) to 28% (absolute delta power). Absolute and relative delta power increased significantly after running, while relative theta power decreased significantly. Relative beta and gamma power were significantly higher in the afternoon compared to morning trials. Sample entropy and alpha power were relatively consistent. The coefficients of variability we found are similar to some clinical rsEEG effect sizes identified in prior literature, bringing into question the clinical significance of these effect sizes. Furthermore, time of day and activity level accounted for more rsEEG variability than experiment day, indicating the potential to reduce variability by controlling for these factors in repeated-measures studies.

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.446
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.446
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207