Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37461294›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2023

Sex-related patterns in the electroencephalogram and their relevance in machine learning classifiers.

Thomas Jochmann, Marc S Seibel, Elisabeth Jochmann, Sheraz Khan, Matti S Hämäläinen, Jens Haueisen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thomas JochmannDepartment of Computer Science and Automation, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3564-4127
Marc S SeibelDepartment of Computer Science and Automation, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany.
Elisabeth JochmannDepartment of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2629-3297
Sheraz KhanAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Matti S HämäläinenAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Jens HaueisenDepartment of Computer Science and Automation, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3871-2890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning is increasingly being proposed for detecting neurological and psychiatric diseases from electroencephalogram (EEG) data but the method is prone to inadvertently incorporate biases from training data and exploit illegitimate patterns. The recent demonstration that deep learning can detect the sex from EEG implies potential sex-related biases in deep learning-based disease detectors for the many diseases with unequal prevalence between males and females. In this work, we present the male- and female-typical patterns used by a convolutional neural network that detects the sex from clinical EEG (81% accuracy in a separate test set with 142 patients). We considered neural sources, anatomical differences, and non-neural artifacts as sources of differences in the EEG curves. Using EEGs from 1140 patients, we found electrocardiac artifacts to be leaking into the supposedly brain activity-based classifiers. Nevertheless, the sex remained detectable after rejecting heart-related and other artifacts. In the cleaned data, EEG topographies were critical to detect the sex, but waveforms and frequencies were not. None of the traditional frequency bands was particularly important for sex detection. We were able to determine the sex even from EEGs with shuffled time points and therewith completely destroyed waveforms. Researchers should consider neural and non-neural sources as potential origins of sex differences in their data, they should maintain best practices of artifact rejection, even when datasets are large, and they should test their classifiers for sex biases.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedArtifactsElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleNeural Networks, Computerartificial intelligencedeep learningelectroencephalographyexplainable artificial intelligencemachine learningsex differences

Identifiers

PMID37461294
PMCPMC10472918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.