MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405741880 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2024.3522121

fNIRS Classification of Adults With ADHD Enhanced by Feature Selection

2024· article· en· W4405741880 on OpenAlexaff
Suh-Yeon Dong, Soon‐Kiat Chiang, Roger S. Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligencePsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyMachine learningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a prevalent psychiatric disorder, significantly impacts social, academic, and occupational functioning. However, it has been relatively less prioritized compared to childhood ADHD. This study employed a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during verbal fluency tasks in conjunction with machine learning (ML) techniques to differentiate between healthy controls (N=75) and ADHD individuals (N=120). Efficient feature selection in high-dimensional fNIRS datasets is crucial for improving accuracy. To address this, we propose a hybrid feature selection method that combines a wrapper-based and embedded approach, termed Bayesian-Tuned Ridge RFECV (BTR-RFECV). The proposed method facilitated streamlined feature selection and hyperparameter tuning in high-dimensional data, thereby reducing the number of features while enhancing accuracy. HbO features from the combined frontal and temporal regions were key, with the models achieving precision (89.89%), recall (89.74%), F-1 score (89.66%), accuracy (89.74%), MCC (78.36%), and GDR (88.45%). The outcomes of this study highlight the promising potential of combining fNIRS with ML as diagnostic tools in clinical settings, offering a pathway to significantly reduce manual intervention.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207