MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405790799 · doi:10.22266/ijies2025.0229.85

Automatic Sleep Spindle Detection Using SMOTE and Composite Features with SWT and Adaboost

2024· article· en· W4405790799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of intelligent engineering and systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaBoostArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Sleep (system call)Speech recognitionMachine learningSupport vector machineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep Spindles contribute to diagnosing several brain-related diseases like sleep apnea, major depression, etc.Hence, sleep spindle detection from Electroencephalogram (EEG) has gained significant research interest in the bio-medical signaling field.Existing methods use template matching and machine learning algorithms for spindle detection.In the template matching methods, the additional and continuous tuning of the threshold creates an unnecessary computational burden.In the machine learning-based method, significant problems such as data imbalance and less discrimination due to fewer and inappropriate features are addressed.To address these issues, this research presents a novel automatic spindle recognition approach that uses the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) to balance the dataset and integrates time-domain and frequency-domain information for effective feature extraction.The Synchrosqueezed Wavelet Transform (SWT) is utilized for accurate frequency domain feature extraction, while the Adaboost(Adaptive Boosting)algorithm is implemented for classification.This method, evaluated using the publicly accessible Montreal Archives of Sleep Studies Cohort 1 (MASS-C1) dataset, significantly outperforms existing methods like as SpindleU-Net, Convolutional MIL (Multiple Instance Learning), SST-RUSBoost (Synchrosqueezed Transform -Random Under-Sampling Boosting), and MuFF-E(Multi-Feature Fusion and Ensemble), with an F-score of 75%, Sensitivity of 78%, and Positive Predictive Value of 73%.The findings illustrate the superiority of the proposed method in addressing data imbalance and improving detection accuracy.

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 score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of intelligent engineering and systemsSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207