ArticleJournal of biological methods2025
Electroencephalogram-based time-frequency analysis for Alzheimer's disease detection using machine learning.
Article in Journal of biological methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia. The lack of effective prevention or cure makes AD a significant concern, as it is a progressive disease with symptoms that worsen over time. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop an algorithm capable of differentiating between patients with early-stage AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI]), moderate AD, and healthy controls (C) using electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. Methods: A publicly available EEG database was utilized, with seven EEG recordings selected from each study group (MCI, AD, and C) to ensure a balanced dataset. For each 1-s segment of EEG data, 43 time-frequency features were computed. These features were then compressed over time using 10 statistical measures. Subsequently, 15 classifiers were employed to distinguish between paired groups using a 7-fold cross-validation. Results: The strategy yielded better results than state-of-the-art methods, achieving a 100% accuracy in both C versus MCI and C versus AD binary classifications. This improvement translated to a 2% increase in accuracy for C versus MCI and a 4% increase for C versus AD, despite a 1.2% decrease in performance for AD versus MCI. In addition, the proposed method outperformed prior work on the same database by 4.8% for the AD versus MCI comparison. Conclusion: The present study highlights the potential of EEG as a promising tool for early AD diagnosis. Nevertheless, a more extensive database should be used to enhance the generalizability of the results in future work.
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.