ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2021
Machine learning approaches reveal subtle differences in breathing and sleep fragmentation in
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolic trade-offs in Neonatal sepsis triggered by TLR4 and TLR1/2 ligands result in unique dysfunctions in neural breathing circuits.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2024Article
- An automated respiratory data pipeline for waveform characteristic analysis.The Journal of physiology · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern neurophysiology research requires the interrogation of high-dimensionality data sets. Machine learning and artificial intelligence (ML/AI) workflows have permeated into nearly all aspects of daily life in the developed world but have not been implemented routinely in neurophysiological analyses. The power of these workflows includes the speed at which they can be deployed, their availability of open-source programming languages, and the objectivity permitted in their data analysis. We used classification-based algorithms, including random forest, gradient boosted machines, support vector machines, and neural networks, to test the hypothesis that the animal genotypes could be separated into their genotype based on interpretation of neurophysiological recordings. We then interrogate the models to identify what were the major features utilized by the algorithms to designate genotype classification. By using raw EEG and respiratory plethysmography data, we were able to predict which recordings came from genotype class with accuracies that were significantly improved relative to the no information rate, although EEG analyses showed more overlap between groups than respiratory plethysmography. In comparison, conventional methods where single features between animal classes were analyzed, differences between the genotypes tested using baseline neurophysiology measurements showed no statistical difference. However, ML/AI workflows successfully were capable of providing successful classification, indicating that interactions between features were different in these genotypes. ML/AI workflows provide new methodologies to interrogate neurophysiology data. However, their implementation must be done with care so as to provide high rigor and reproducibility between laboratories. We provide a series of recommendations on how to report the utilization of ML/AI workflows for the neurophysiology community.
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.