Implications of Aperiodic and Periodic EEG Components in Classification of Major Depressive Disorder from Source and Electrode Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) is useful for studying brain activity in major depressive disorder (MDD), particularly focusing on theta and alpha frequency bands via power spectral density (PSD). However, PSD-based analysis has often produced inconsistent results due to difficulties in distinguishing between periodic and aperiodic components of EEG signals. We analyzed EEG data from 114 young adults, including 74 healthy controls (HCs) and 40 MDD patients, assessing periodic and aperiodic components alongside conventional PSD at both source and electrode levels. Machine learning algorithms classified MDD versus HC based on these features. Sensor-level analysis showed stronger Hedge's g effect sizes for parietal theta and frontal alpha activity than source-level analysis. MDD individuals exhibited reduced theta and alpha activity relative to HC. Logistic regression-based classifications showed that periodic components slightly outperformed PSD, with the best results achieved by combining periodic and aperiodic features (AUC = 0.82). Strong negative correlations were found between reduced periodic parietal theta and frontal alpha activities and higher scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, particularly for the anhedonia subscale. This study emphasizes the superiority of sensor-level over source-level analysis for detecting MDD-related changes and highlights the value of incorporating both periodic and aperiodic components for a more refined understanding of depressive disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".