MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392712493 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.06.583618

Motor Hotspot Localization Based on Electroencephalography Using Convolutional Neural Network in Patients with Stroke

2024· preprint· en· W4392712493 on OpenAlexaff
Ga-Young Choi, Jeong-Kweon Seo, Kyoung Tae Kim, Won Kee Chang, Nam‐Jong Paik, Won‐Seok Kim, Han-Jeong Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaIran Telecommunication Research CenterNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsElectroencephalographyConvolutional neural networkHotspot (geology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePsychologyNeuroscienceGeologyGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Although transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is the optimal tool for identifying individual motor hotspots for transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), it requires a cumbersome procedure in which patients must visit the hospital each time and rely on expert judgment to determine the motor hotspot. Therefore, in previous study, we proposed electroencephalography (EEG)-based machine learning approach to automatically identify individual motor hotspots. In this study, we proposed an advanced EEG-based motor hotspot identification algorithm using a deep learning model and assessed its clinical feasibility and benefits by applying it to stroke patient EEGs. Methods EEG data were measured from thirty subjects as they performed a simple hand movement task. We utilized the five types of input data depending on the processing levels to assess the signal processing capability of our proposed deep learning model. The motor hotspot locations were estimated using a two-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) model. The error distance between the 3D coordinate information of the individual motor hotspots identified by the TMS (ground truth) and EEGs was calculated using the Euclidean distance. Additionally, we confirmed the clinical benefits of our proposed deep-learning algorithm by applying the EEG of stroke patients. Results A mean error distance between the motor hotspot locations identified by TMS and our approach was 2.34 ± 0.19 mm when using raw data from only 9 channels around the motor area. When it was tested on stroke patients, the mean error distance was 1.77 ± 0.15 mm using only 5 channels around the motor area. Conclusion We have demonstrated that an EEG-based deep learning approach can effectively identify the individual motor hotspots. Moreover, we validated the clinical benefits of our algorithm by successfully implementing it in stroke patients. Our algorithm can be used as an alternative to TMS for identifying motor hotspots and maximizing rehabilitation effectiveness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→