MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Imbalance-aware Machine Learning for Epileptic Seizure Detection

2024· article· en· W4400315333 on OpenAlexaff
Khadidja Henni, Lina Abou-Abbas, Imene Jmal, Amar Mitiche, Neila Mezghani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité TÉLUQ
FundersNature
KeywordsEpileptic seizureComputer scienceEpilepsyArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic epileptic seizure detection is a challenging task that could cope with sudden seizures and help epileptic patients to have a normal life. The electroencephalography (EEG) recording remains the most common method used for detecting epileptic seizures. The precision and accuracy of seizure detection are the most important elements in automatic EEG-based seizure detection systems, which could be achieved by training the classification models with relevant features. In this work, we propose a robust machine learning framework for epileptic seizure detection from EEG data. Imbalance class problem and high dimensional feature space issue have been handled for classification. Our approach has been tested on the largest EEG database (The Temple University Hospital EEG Seizure Corpus, TUSZ). A comparative study on three categories of data balancing techniques: costsensitive learning (weighting), oversampling and under sampling has been made. An efficient feature selection algorithm based on feature interaction graph analysis has been used for selecting minimal number of relevant inputs before classification. Results in terms of accuracy and area under the curve (AUC), have showed that the features subset selected using the graph-based method, balanced by the Synthetic Minority Over Sampling method (SMOTE) achieved the highest classification performance using random forest classifier.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207