Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39106531›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2024

Machine learning of brain-specific biomarkers from EEG.

Philipp Bomatter, Joseph Paillard, Pilar Garces, Jörg Hipp, Denis-Alexander Engemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Research progress in electroencephalogram-based brain age prediction].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. EEG connectivity features associated with fibromyalgia revealed by machine learning.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Philipp BomatterRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Joseph PaillardRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Pilar GarcesRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Jörg HippRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Denis-Alexander EngemannRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: denis.engemann@roche.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectroencephalography (EEG) has a long history as a clinical tool to study brain function, and its potential to derive biomarkers for various applications is far from exhausted. Machine learning (ML) can guide future innovation by harnessing the wealth of complex EEG signals to isolate relevant brain activity. Yet, ML studies in EEG tend to ignore physiological artefacts, which may cause problems for deriving biomarkers specific to the central nervous system (CNS).

methodsWe present a framework for conceptualising machine learning from CNS versus peripheral signals measured with EEG. A signal representation based on Morlet wavelets allowed us to define traditional brain activity features (e.g. log power) and alternative inputs used by state-of-the-art ML approaches based on covariance matrices. Using more than 2600 EEG recordings from large public databases (TUAB, TDBRAIN), we studied the impact of peripheral signals and artefact removal techniques on ML models in age and sex prediction analyses.

findingsAcross benchmarks, basic artefact rejection improved model performance, whereas further removal of peripheral signals using ICA decreased performance. Our analyses revealed that peripheral signals enable age and sex prediction. However, they explained only a fraction of the performance provided by brain signals.

interpretationWe show that brain signals and body signals, both present in the EEG, allow for prediction of personal characteristics. While these results may depend on specific applications, our work suggests that great care is needed to separate these signals when the goal is to develop CNS-specific biomarkers using ML.

fundingAll authors have been working for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrainElectroencephalographyMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAlgorithmsArtifactsChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedYoung AdultBiomarkersBiomarkerEEGMachine learningPreprocessingWavelets

Identifiers

PMID39106531
PMCPMC11347073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.