MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396519782 · doi:10.18280/ts.410237

Diagnosing Epilepsy from EEG Using Machine Learning and Welch Spectral Analysis

2024· article· en· W4396519782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esmira Abdullayeva

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyElectroencephalographySpectral analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)NeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that is characterized by recurring seizures.Seizures are electrical disturbances in the brain that develop suddenly and uncontrollably.They can cause various symptoms, depending on what part of the brain is affected.The cause of epilepsy is often unknown, but it can be caused by brain injury, brain infections, genetics, or other medical conditions.EEG analysis is a very important aspect of the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy.It includes the interpretation of electrical activity patterns recorded from the electrodes.In this study, the machine learning methods and deep learning methods have been examined for epilepsy diagnosis.Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB) algorithm, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Levenberg-Marguardt (LM), and Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) were used for classification, while the Welch method has been used for feature extraction.The Bonn EEG dataset has been used for application.As a result, the RF method showed the best accuracy as 99.87%.RF achieved 99.84% precision, 99.9% sensitivity, 99.87% F1-Score, and 99.87 AUC.LSTM achieved the second accuracy degree as 99.39%.LSTM achieved 99.52% precision, 99.29% sensitivity, 99.39% F1-Score, and 99.40 AUC.LM, SVM, and NB achieved 98.82%, 97.90%, and 97.66% classification accuracies respectively.LM achieved 97.85% precision, 99.97% sensitivity, 98.87% F1-Score, and 98.92 AUC.SVM achieved 96.10% precision, 100% sensitivity, 97.99% F1-Score, and 98.10 AUC.NB achieved 98.80% precision, 96.42% sensitivity, 97.27% F1-Score, and 97.61 AUC.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207