ArticleJournal of clinical practice and research2026
Machine Learning-Based Fatigue Detection from EEG Signals: A Methodological Pilot Framework with Potential for Nursing Applications.
Article in Journal of clinical practice and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Fatigue is a significant occupational health issue that adversely affects attention and decision-making. This study aimed to objectively predict fatigue levels using EEG signals and machine learning models and to develop a physiologically based assessment framework with potential future applications in nursing. Materials and Methods: Time-domain, frequency-domain, entropy, Hjorth, and wavelet features were extracted from EEG data collected from 12 participants aged 21-40 years, with fatigue levels labeled using various scales. Results: Classification performance varied across validation strategies. Under 5-fold cross-validation, Random Forest achieved the highest performance (accuracy=1.00, macro-F1=1.00), while KNN and NB also demonstrated strong performance. However, under LOOCV, sensitivity, precision, and macro-F1 values decreased despite relatively high accuracy. LOSO validation yielded more balanced results, with Random Forest maintaining the best performance (accuracy=0.97, macro-F1=0.91). Conclusion: EEG-derived features provide valuable information for fatigue assessment. Although high performance was achieved under certain validation strategies, subject-independent evaluation revealed more realistic performance levels. The proposed framework offers a practical approach to fatigue monitoring. Future studies should focus on larger, domain-specific datasets and multimodal integration to enhance generalizability.
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.