2017
DOI: 10.12720/jcm.12.10.589-595
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Rule-Based and Machine Learning Methods for Classification of Spikes in EEG

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On a cluster level, the sensitivity of automated spike detection ranged from 57% in the most prevalent cluster to 23% in the fourth most prevalent cluster, with an average of 38%. For comparison, on a single spike level and in a different study cohort, the same spike detector as used here had a sensitivity of 44% [26], while other algorithms had similar sensitivities of 44-47% [10,32]. Experienced human EEG readers were found to have pairwise sensitivities of 40-52% for each other's spike markings [26].…”
Section: Spike Detectionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On a cluster level, the sensitivity of automated spike detection ranged from 57% in the most prevalent cluster to 23% in the fourth most prevalent cluster, with an average of 38%. For comparison, on a single spike level and in a different study cohort, the same spike detector as used here had a sensitivity of 44% [26], while other algorithms had similar sensitivities of 44-47% [10,32]. Experienced human EEG readers were found to have pairwise sensitivities of 40-52% for each other's spike markings [26].…”
Section: Spike Detectionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…5A, together with their 95%-CIs. Across all setups, the average sensitivity was 68%, the average specificity was 61%, and the average diagnostic 15 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] 15 [12][13][14][15][16] accuracy was 65%. There were no statistically significant differences between the electrode setups (0.69 < p < 0.86).…”
Section: Source Localisationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cronin et al developed an automated patient portal message classifiers with the rule-based approach using natural language processing (NLP) and the bag of words [12]. Ganglberger et al discuss different automatic spike detection methods in order to improve detection performance and establish a user-adjustable sensitivity parameter mainly by examining the functioning of a rule-based system, artificial neural networks (ANNs) and random forests [13]. Accordingly, the rule-based system needed a feature selection to classify text documents.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these methods, similarities between the waveform of interest and the IED template are measured and then is determined whether the waveform is IED or not. Some researchers have also established feature engineering methods according to the time domain, frequency domain, or nonlinear features of scalp EEG, and detection of IEDs via classifiers with one or more features, such as decision trees [15], artificial neural network [16], AdaBoost [17], and clustering [18]. Although the aforementioned automated IED detection methods have achieved some good results, several obstacles remain to their clinical application.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%