Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37672143›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2023

Automated diagnosis of EEG abnormalities with different classification techniques.

Essam Abdellatef, Heba M Emara, Mohamed R Shoaib, Fatma E Ibrahim, Mohamed Elwekeil, Walid El-Shafai, Taha E Taha, Adel S El-Fishawy, El-Sayed M El-Rabaie, Ibrahim M Eldokany and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Essam AbdellatefDepartment of Electronics and Communications, Delta Higher Institute for Engineering and Technology (DHIET), 35511, Mansoura, Egypt.
Heba M EmaraFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Mohamed R ShoaibSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Fatma E IbrahimFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Mohamed ElwekeilFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Walid El-ShafaiFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt. eng.waled.elshafai@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7509-2120
Taha E TahaFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Adel S El-FishawyFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
El-Sayed M El-RabaieFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Ibrahim M EldokanyFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.
Fathi E Abd El-SamieFaculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University, 32952, Menouf, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-9518

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic seizure detection and prediction using clinical Electroencephalograms (EEGs) are challenging tasks due to factors such as low Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs), high variance in epileptic seizures among patients, and limited clinical data constraints. To overcome these challenges, this paper presents two approaches for EEG signal classification. One of these approaches depends on Machine Learning (ML) tools. The used features are different types of entropy, higher-order statistics, and sub-band energies in the Hilbert Marginal Spectrum (HMS) domain. The classification is performed using Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) classifiers. Both seizure detection and prediction scenarios are considered. The second approach depends on spectrograms of EEG signal segments and a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based residual learning model. We use 10000 spectrogram images for each class. In this approach, it is possible to perform both seizure detection and prediction in addition to a 3-state classification scenario. Both approaches are evaluated on the Children's Hospital Boston and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (CHB-MIT) dataset, which contains 24 EEG recordings for 6 males and 18 females. The results obtained for the HMS-based model showed an accuracy of 100%. The CNN-based model achieved accuracies of 97.66%, 95.59%, and 94.51% for Seizure (S) versus Pre-Seizure (PS), Non-Seizure (NS) versus S, and NS versus S versus PS classes, respectively. These results demonstrate that the proposed approaches can be effectively used for seizure detection and prediction. They outperform the state-of-the-art techniques for automatic seizure detection and prediction. Block diagram of proposed epileptic seizure detection method using HMS with different classifiers.

Indexed as

EpilepsySeizuresAlgorithmsChildElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleNeural Networks, ComputerSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSupport Vector MachineEEGEMDEpilepsyHMSSeizure detectionSeizure prediction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.