ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
A Comprehensive Machine-Learning-Based Software Pipeline to Classify EEG Signals: A Case Study on PNES vs. Control Subjects.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Management of Non-convulsive Seizures: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Differentiating Epileptic and Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures Using Machine Learning Analysis of EEG Plot Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Automatic Detection of Abnormal EEG Signals Using WaveNet and LSTM.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Automatic Seizure Detection and Prediction Based on Brain Connectivity Features and a CNNs Meet Transformers Classifier.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Delirium detection using GAMMA wave and machine learning: A pilot study.Research in nursing & health · 2022Article
- Deep Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit Combined with Attention Mechanism to Classify Pre-Ictal from Interictal EEG with Minimized Number of Channels.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Permutation Entropy-Based Interpretability of Convolutional Neural Network Models for Interictal EEG Discrimination of Subjects with Epileptic Seizures vs. Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Machine Learning Approach Involving Functional Connectivity Features to Classify Rest-EEG Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures from Healthy Controls.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Real-Time Artifacts Reduction during TMS-EEG Co-Registration: A Comprehensive Review on Technologies and Procedures.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) by means of electroencephalography (EEG) is not a trivial task during clinical practice for neurologists. No clear PNES electrophysiological biomarker has yet been found, and the only tool available for diagnosis is video EEG monitoring with recording of a typical episode and clinical history of the subject. In this paper, a data-driven machine learning (ML) pipeline for classifying EEG segments (i.e., epochs) of PNES and healthy controls (CNT) is introduced. This software pipeline consists of a semiautomatic signal processing technique and a supervised ML classifier to aid clinical discriminative diagnosis of PNES by means of an EEG time series. In our ML pipeline, statistical features like the mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness are extracted in a power spectral density (PSD) map split up in five conventional EEG rhythms (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and the whole band, i.e., 1-32 Hz). Then, the feature vector is fed into three different supervised ML algorithms, namely, the support vector machine (SVM), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and Bayesian network (BN), to perform EEG segment classification tasks for CNT vs. PNES. The performance of the pipeline algorithm was evaluated on a dataset of 20 EEG signals (10 PNES and 10 CNT) that was recorded in eyes-closed resting condition at the Regional Epilepsy Centre, Great Metropolitan Hospital of Reggio Calabria, University of Catanzaro, Italy. The experimental results showed that PNES vs. CNT discrimination tasks performed via the ML algorithm and validated with random split (RS) achieved an average accuracy of 0.97 ± 0.013 (RS-SVM), 0.99 ± 0.02 (RS-LDA), and 0.82 ± 0.109 (RS-BN). Meanwhile, with leave-one-out (LOO) validation, an average accuracy of 0.98 ± 0.0233 (LOO-SVM), 0.98 ± 0.124 (LOO-LDA), and 0.81 ± 0.109 (LOO-BN) was achieved. Our findings showed that BN was outperformed by SVM and LDA. The promising results of the proposed software pipeline suggest that it may be a valuable tool to support existing clinical diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.