MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pilot Evaluation of Sevo Systems for Epilepsy: Equitable EEG for Coarse, Dense, and Curly Hair

2024· article· en· W4405489441 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jasmine Kwasa, Evangeline Mensah-Agyekum, Arnelle Etienne, Russell S. Phillips, Christina Patterson, Pulkit Grover

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeMastercard Foundation
KeywordsEpilepsyElectroencephalographyComputer scienceNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collecting electroencephalography (EEG) data from individuals with coarse, curly, or afro-textured hair can be challenging, leading to noisier data, negative clinical outcomes (e.g., risk of misdiagnosis, discomfort, longer setup times, unsavory treatment, hair shaving, and microaggressions), and unreliable basic science conclusions due to the disproportionate exclusion of people with this physical feature worldwide. Our prior work demonstrated that strategically braiding hair to expose the scalp at standard locations improves impedance and that novel electrode adapters that we developed called "Sevo" can further lower impedance by more than 15x. In this article, we further quantify the signal quality of Sevo EEG compared to traditional EEG on a cohort of pediatric epileptic patients and health adult volunteers. We assessed the influence of braiding and the use of Sevo adapters on signal quality and found that Sevo reduces noise in two key metrics of the power spectra, especially for the pediatric epilepsy group. We conclude by outlining best practices for preparing coarse, curly hair for use by EEG technicians, researchers, and patients.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→