MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976940466 · doi:10.60692/qn2gs-3b250

Predicting cognitive impairment in outpatients with epilepsy using machine learning techniques

2021· article· en· W6976940466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyRandom forestResamplingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentFeature selectionRedundancy (engineering)CognitionCognitive impairmentArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies report predictions for cognitive function but there are few predictions in epileptic patients; therefore, we established a workflow to efficiently predict outcomes of both the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in outpatients with epilepsy. Data from 441 outpatients with epilepsy were included; of these, 433 patients met the 12 clinical characteristic criteria and were divided into training (n = 304) and experimental (n = 129) groups. After descriptive statistics were analyzed, cross-validation was used to select the optimal model. The random forest (RF) algorithm was combined with the redundancy analysis (RDA) algorithm; then, optimal feature selection and resampling were carried out after removing linear redundancy information. The features that contributed more to multiple outcomes were selected. Finally, the external traceability of the model was evaluated using the follow-up data. The RF algorithm was the best prediction model for both MMSE and MoCA outcomes. Finally, seven markers were screened by overlapping the top ten important features for MMSE ranked by RF modeling, those ranked for MoCA ranked by RF modeling, and those for both assessments ranked by RDA. The optimal combination of features were namely, sex, age, age of onset, seizure frequency, brain MRI abnormalities, epileptiform discharge in EEG and usage of drugs. which was the most efficient in predicting outcomes of MMSE, MoCA, and both assessments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207