Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence System for Automated EEG Background Analysis and Report Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hybrid AI system can interpret EEG background activity and generate accurate reports, outperforming neurologists on generalized slowing.

desk verdict A solid PDR-prediction and pipeline engineering paper whose headline claims about outperforming neurologists and 100% report accuracy are not supported by the validation design. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09874 v1 pith:5DREEATR submitted 2024-11-15 cs.AI eess.SP

Chin-Sung Tung , Sheng-Fu Liang , Shu-Feng Chang , Chung-Ping Young This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIeess.SP
keywords EEGposteriordominantrhythmdeeplearningartifactremovalgeneralizedbackgroundslowinglargelanguagemodelsreportgenerationhybridAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a hybrid AI system for automated interpretation of EEG background activity, aimed at small hospitals and clinics where expert EEG reading is scarce. The system combines a deep learning ensemble that estimates the posterior dominant rhythm (PDR) from power spectra, an unsupervised artifact repair step, and expert-designed threshold algorithms that flag generalized background slowing, asymmetry, and focal slow waves. On 1,530 labeled EEGs, the best ensemble predicted PDR within 0.6 Hz 91.8% of the time and within 1.2 Hz 99% of the time. In a blinded validation set, the AI detected generalized background slowing with $F_1$ 0.93 versus 0.82 for neurologists ($p = 0.02$), and the authors report 100% accuracy when large language models generated the final text reports. The authors argue the system is scalable and accurate enough to assist neurologists in resource-limited settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid analysis pipeline. EEGs are re-referenced with the reference electrode standardization technique (REST), segmented into 4-second epochs, and cleaned by an unsupervised artifact detector that uses Histogram-based Outlier Score (HBOS) plus a neighboring-electrode comparison to repair contaminated channels. Posterior dominant rhythm is predicted by an ensemble of three regression CNNs (custom CNN, GoogleNet, ResNet) fed multitaper power spectral density features from six posterior electrodes. A separate expert-threshold algorithm, based on clinical guidelines and quantified EEG norms, turns the predicted PDR and band-power ratios into three binary judgments: generalized background slowing, background asymmetry, and focal slow waves. Finally, structured features are formatted as JSON and passed to a large language model with a role-specific prompt to generate the human-readable report.

What would settle it

Take the 100 EEGs in the custom validation set and have a fresh panel of neurologists interpret them under the same standardized conditions as the AI (blinded, same categories, same features); if their $F_1$ for generalized background slowing reaches or exceeds the AI's 0.93, the reported $p = 0.02$ superiority disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a modular hybrid pipeline—rather than a single end-to-end deep network—can match or beat human neurologists on EEG background interpretation while training on a relatively small dataset. The key quantitative results are: an ensemble CNN (combining a custom CNN, GoogleNet, and ResNet) estimates PDR with mean absolute error 0.237 Hz and 91.8% accuracy within 0.6 Hz; the rule-based abnormality algorithm achieves $F_1$ 0.93 for generalized background slowing, significantly above neurologists' 0.82; and the same pipeline maintains $F_1$ 0.835 on a public abnormal EEG corpus, statistically indistinguishable from its 0.884 on the internal validation set. The authors also report that LLM-generated reports, checked by three independent LLMs and human experts, matched the structured features 100% of the time across 512 reports.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the AI outperforms neurologists rests on treating the original archived clinical reports as a faithful benchmark of neurologist performance on the same binary detection task.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accuracy holds, small hospitals without quantitative EEG software could run the pipeline to obtain reproducible posterior dominant rhythm estimates and abnormality flags.
  • The significantly higher $F_1$ for generalized background slowing suggests AI-assisted reading could reduce missed diagnoses of diffuse cortical dysfunction compared with unaided routine interpretation.
  • Successful external validation on a public abnormal EEG corpus implies the thresholds and CNN transfer to another EEG acquisition context without retraining.
  • The 100% LLM report accuracy on 512 reports indicates that structured features can be converted into readable clinical text without hallucination in this constrained setting, though the authors note hallucinations remain a general LLM risk.
  • The modular design means the PDR model and the rule-based abnormality detector can be improved or replaced independently.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The comparison against archived routine reports, rather than prospective readings by the same neurologists under test conditions, may overstate the human-AI gap; a prospective head-to-head would be a stiffer test.
  • The modular architecture (PDR CNN plus explicit thresholds) is easier to audit and certify than an end-to-end black box, which matters for clinical adoption.
  • The 100% LLM accuracy on this in-distribution test set should not be read as hallucination-proof; the structured JSON features likely constrain the model, and broader prompts or edge cases could still fail.
  • If the pipeline generalizes across institutions, it could pair with portable EEG devices to provide near-real-time background interpretation in emergency or remote settings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid AI system for automated EEG background analysis and report generation, combining CNN-based posterior dominant rhythm (PDR) prediction, unsupervised artifact removal, expert-designed heuristic detection of generalized background slowing (GBS) and focal abnormalities, and LLM-based report generation. The authors report strong PDR prediction accuracy (MAE 0.237, ACC0.6 91.8%), claim that the AI significantly outperformed neurologists in detecting GBS (p=0.02; F1 0.93 vs 0.82), show performance on the TUAB external dataset (F1 0.835), and claim 100% accuracy for LLM-generated reports verified by three independent LLMs. The PDR component is the most rigorously evaluated part of the work; the neurologist comparison and the LLM report accuracy claims are the main areas of concern.

Significance. If the PDR prediction results and the modular system architecture are taken on their own, this is a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates that a relatively small labeled dataset (1,530 EEGs) can support accurate PDR estimation, and the use of an interpretable expert-scoring layer rather than a fully black-box classifier is practically attractive. The k-fold cross-validation and TUAB external validation for PDR are commendable, and the paper is transparent about several data-processing choices. However, the two headline claims that elevate the paper beyond a systems study—that the AI significantly outperforms neurologists and that LLM report generation has 100% accuracy—are not supported by the evidence as presented. The first comparison is not task-matched, and the second verification is largely circular. These issues bear directly on the abstract's conclusions and must be resolved before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.G.1.a and Table VIII] The claim that the AI system significantly outperformed neurologists in detecting generalized background slowing (p=0.02) is based on an unmatched comparison. As described in II.G.1.a, ground truth was established by majority agreement among three blinded neurologists reading the EEGs, while the "neurologist" performance row in Table VIII was obtained by manually labeling whether the original clinical reports (written during routine care for other purposes) mentioned GBS or focal abnormalities. Routine reports are not equivalent to a forced-choice detection task with the same two predefined categories used by the AI. A clinician may omit a finding that they did not consider clinically actionable, may phrase it differently, or may have had access to different patient information. The McNemar test therefore compares the AI's binary classifications against documentation practice, not against the diagnostic performance of neurologists performing the same task. The abstract's statement that the AI "significantly outperformed neurologists" is unsupported as written; the authors should either perform a controlled, blinded reading of the same 100 EEGs by neurologists using the same binary categories, or remove/qualify this claim.
  2. [II.H–II.I] The LLM report-generation evaluation is circular and the reported 100% accuracy is not a clinical accuracy claim. The JSON features fed to the generating LLM are the hybrid AI algorithm's own outputs (II.H.3). The verifier LLMs are then instructed to classify the generated report for the presence of the same two indicators (GBS and focal abnormality), and the verification results are compared against the hybrid AI algorithm's outputs (II.I). Perfect agreement therefore reflects the LLM's ability to restate the input features in prose, not the clinical correctness of the report. The statement that human experts confirmed 100% accuracy does not resolve this because the reports contain only the features already produced by the algorithm. The abstract should either be rephrased to say that reports were faithful to the structured input features, or the verification should be redesigned so that report content is compared with independent ground truth read from the raw EEG.
  3. [Table II] Two key thresholds in the abnormality detection algorithm are fitted to the data distribution: the focal abnormality score threshold (>2.4) and the alpha amplitude score threshold (>1.6) are both described as being set at the 5% of the data distribution. Because these thresholds are derived from the same dataset on which the custom validation performance is reported, the F1/accuracy figures in Table VIII (and the TUAB results that reuse the same thresholds) may be optimistically biased. The threshold-selection procedure should be embedded in cross-validation or performed on a held-out set, and the sensitivity of the reported metrics to plausible threshold values should be reported. Without this, the generalizability claim in Section IV is not fully supported.
  4. [II.G.1.b and Table IX] The TUAB validation dataset was reclassified after review by three neurologists, with 28 of 276 recordings relabeled. The manuscript does not state whether these reviewers were blinded to the hybrid AI system's outputs or categories, nor does it describe the reclassification criteria in detail. If the relabeling was informed by the algorithm's behavior, the external validation is not independent and the p=0.66 comparison in Table IX is weakened. Please clarify the reclassification protocol and, if possible, report results on the original TUAB labels as well as the relabeled set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "inicaters" in II.G.1.a, "aslo" in the author affiliation, and "Y oung" in the author byline. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Table VIII] The table caption defines P and R as precision and recall, but the columns are labeled only as P and R. Consider using the full words in the header for clarity.
  3. [III.F] The Gwet AC1 values for LLM agreement (0.97 and 0.99) and the associated 100% F1/accuracy reflect near-perfect agreement among verifier LLMs, but this is agreement about the generated text, not agreement with an independent clinical reference. The text should avoid implying that high inter-LLM agreement establishes diagnostic accuracy.
  4. [II.E.1.f] The 'Smaller Dataset Validation' is a data-sufficiency analysis rather than validation on a smaller independent dataset. Renaming this section would avoid confusion with external validation.
  5. [IV. Discussion] The comparison with SCORE-AI is based on accuracies from different studies with different category definitions and datasets; this is not a head-to-head comparison. The discussion should clearly state that the numbers are not directly comparable, or should remove the implicit superiority claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The LLM report-generation '100% accuracy' claim is circular: the verifier LLMs compare generated reports against the same structured JSON features that were given to the generator as input, so the loop measures text fidelity, not independent clinical accuracy.

  1. self definitional [Section II.H-II.I, Fig. 5, Section III.F, Table X]
    "The system takes as input the structured EEG features generated by our hybrid AI algorithm. These features are formatted as a JSON object, containing key metrics such as background frequency, amplitude, symmetry, and any detected abnormalities. ... The API generates a report text, which subsequently undergoes an accuracy verification step using an ensemble of three LLMs ... All 512 LLM verification results were compared with the results output by the hybrid AI algorithm on the two indicators of GBS and focal abnormality, and a confusion matrix was calculated to verify accuracy."

    The generated report is produced by rendering the input JSON features into prose, and the verification LLMs are asked to label the report for the same two indicators that are already encoded in that JSON. The reference standard for verification is the hybrid AI algorithm's own output, which is exactly the source of the JSON features given to the generator. Therefore the 100% F1 and accuracy in Table X measure whether the LLM text faithfully contains the findings that were placed into its prompt, not whether the report is clinically correct against any external ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's PDR prediction pipeline is a standard supervised learning setup with 1530 labeled EEGs, a 70/30 split, and external TUAB validation; that portion is self-contained and not circular. The expert-rule abnormality detection also rests on literature thresholds and expert consensus, and the comparison with SCORE-AI is presented as external benchmarking. The central circularity is confined to the LLM report-generation verification: the generator receives a JSON of hybrid-AI findings, the verifier LLMs extract the same two findings from the generated text, and the hybrid AI algorithm's output serves as the reference. This is a closed loop, so the reported 100% accuracy is a self-consistency result, not evidence of clinical report accuracy. Additionally, the AI-versus-neurologist comparison in Table VIII is not circular but is methodologically asymmetric, because the neurologist arm is derived from historical clinical reports rather than from a blinded forced-choice detection task with the same two categories; that asymmetry may explain part of the F1 gap, but it is a benchmark-validity concern rather than a by-construction equivalence. The thresholds in Table II are partly derived from the data distribution ('5% of data distribution'), and the paper does not state that the 100-EEG validation set was excluded from that derivation, so this is a potential leakage caveat; however, because the threshold only sets a marginal prevalence and does not directly encode the validation labels, it is not a forced prediction and is not scored as a separate circular step. Overall, one prominent claim reduces by construction, while the core signal-processing and external-dataset results retain independent content, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system relies on clinical domain assumptions about EEG features, standard signal-processing methods, and several hand-set or data-fitted thresholds. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Focal abnormality score threshold = 2.4
    Set at the 5% tail of the data distribution (Table II), so the abnormality decision boundary is fitted to the dataset.
  • Alpha amplitude score threshold = 1.6
    Also set at 5% of data distribution (Table II), used to declare background asymmetry.
  • Artifact exclusion alpha-power threshold = Between mean and median of the data
    Chosen empirically for artifact detection; exact value not specified (Section II.D).
  • Artifact channel proportion threshold = 30%
    Electrode is marked as artifact channel if more than 30% of epochs are contaminated (Section II.D), chosen by the authors.
  • GBS PDR cutoff = 7.5 Hz
    Determined by consensus among neurologists, a hand-chosen clinical threshold (Table II).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EEG background features (PDR, slow-wave ratios, left-right asymmetry) are valid indicators of cerebral dysfunction.
    The entire abnormality detection pipeline relies on this clinical premise, referenced to guidelines [6] and [7].
  • standard math REST reference standardization yields a valid infinite reference for clinical EEG.
    Used in preprocessing (Section II.C.2), relying on Yao's method [18], [19].
  • standard math Multitaper spectral estimation provides unbiased, low-variance power spectra.
    Used for all band-power features (Section II.C.3), citing Thomson [15].
  • domain assumption Thresholds from Lodder and van Putten [7] and ACNS guidelines [6] apply to this clinical population.
    Slow ratio under 50% and AP gradient under 40% are taken from prior literature (Table II).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence System for Automated EEG Background Analysis and Report Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DREEATR

@misc{pith2026241109874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence System for Automated EEG Background Analysis and Report Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DREEATR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09874}
}
read the original abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of various neurological disorders. However, small hospitals and clinics often lack advanced EEG signal analysis systems and are prone to misinterpretation in manual EEG reading. This study proposes an innovative hybrid artificial intelligence (AI) system for automatic interpretation of EEG background activity and report generation. The system combines deep learning models for posterior dominant rhythm (PDR) prediction, unsupervised artifact removal, and expert-designed algorithms for abnormality detection. For PDR prediction, 1530 labeled EEGs were used, and the best ensemble model achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.237, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.359, an accuracy of 91.8% within a 0.6Hz error, and an accuracy of 99% within a 1.2Hz error. The AI system significantly outperformed neurologists in detecting generalized background slowing (p = 0.02; F1: AI 0.93, neurologists 0.82) and demonstrated improved focal abnormality detection, although not statistically significant (p = 0.79; F1: AI 0.71, neurologists 0.55). Validation on both an internal dataset and the Temple University Abnormal EEG Corpus showed consistent performance (F1: 0.884 and 0.835, respectively; p = 0.66), demonstrating generalizability. The use of large language models (LLMs) for report generation demonstrated 100% accuracy, verified by three other independent LLMs. This hybrid AI system provides an easily scalable and accurate solution for EEG interpretation in resource-limited settings, assisting neurologists in improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing misdiagnosis rates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electroencephalography: An Introductory Text and Atlas of Normal and Abnormal Findings in Adults, Children, and Infants,

    J.W. Britton, L.C. Frey, and J.L. Hopp et al., “Electroencephalography: An Introductory Text and Atlas of Normal and Abnormal Findings in Adults, Children, and Infants,” American Epilepsy Society, pp. 48-50, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Histogram-based Outlier Score (HBOS): A fast Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithm,

    M. Goldstein and A. Dengel, “Histogram-based Outlier Score (HBOS): A fast Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithm,” in KI 2012: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2012, pp. 59-63

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,

    A. Gramfort, M. Luessi, E. Larson, D.A. Engemann, D. Strohmeier, C. Brodbeck, R. Goj, M. Jas, T. Brooks, L. Parkkonen, and M. H¨am¨al¨ainen, “MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,” Frontiers in Neuro- science, vol. 7, 2013, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A Call to Address AI ’Hallucinations’ and How Healthcare Professionals Can Mitigate Their Risks,

    R. Hatem, B. Simmons, and J.E. Thornton, “A Call to Address AI ’Hallucinations’ and How Healthcare Professionals Can Mitigate Their Risks,” Cureus, vol. 15, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770-778

    2016

  6. [6]

    American Clinical Neurophysiology Society’s Stan- dardized Critical Care EEG Terminology: 2021 Version,

    L.J. Hirsch et al., “American Clinical Neurophysiology Society’s Stan- dardized Critical Care EEG Terminology: 2021 Version,” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1-29, 2021, doi: 10.1097/wnp.0000000000000806

    work page doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000806 2021

  7. [7]

    Quantification of the adult EEG background pattern,

    S.S. Lodder and M.J.A.M. van Putten, “Quantification of the adult EEG background pattern,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 228- 237, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.07.007 2013

  8. [8]

    Assessing digital and quantitative EEG in clinical set- tings,

    M.R. Nuwer, “Assessing digital and quantitative EEG in clinical set- tings,” Journal of clinical neurophysiology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 458-463, 1998

    work page 1998

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data,

    R. Oostenveld, P. Fries, E. Maris, and J.M. Schoffelen, “FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2011, pp. 1-9, 2011, doi: 10.1155/2011/156869

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    An introduction to convolutional neural networks,

    K. O’shea and R. Nash, “An introduction to convolutional neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08458, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Unsupervised EEG Artifact Detection and Correction,

    S. Saba-Sadiya, E. Chantland, T. Alhanai, T. Liu, and M.M. Ghassemi, “Unsupervised EEG Artifact Detection and Correction,” Frontiers in Digital Health, vol. 2, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2020.608920

    2021

  4. [12]

    Automated EEG anal- ysis: Characterizing the posterior dominant rhythm,

    S.S. Lodder and M.J.A.M. van Putten, “Automated EEG anal- ysis: Characterizing the posterior dominant rhythm,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 86-93, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.06.008

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Going deeper with convolutions,

    C. Szegedy et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 1-9

    2015

  6. [14]

    Normal Adult EEG and Patterns of Uncertain Significance,

    W.O. Tatum IV , A.M. Husain, S.R. Benbadis, and P.W. Ka- plan, “Normal Adult EEG and Patterns of Uncertain Significance,” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 23, no. 3, 2006, doi: 10.1097/01.wnp.0000220110.92126.a6

    2006

  7. [15]

    Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis,

    D.J. Thomson, “Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis,” Pro- ceedings of the IEEE, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 1055-1096, 1982, doi: 10.1109/proc.1982.12433

    1982

  8. [16]

    Chollet et al., “Keras,” 2015

    F. Chollet et al., “Keras,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://keras.io

    2015

  9. [17]

    Automated Interpretation of Clinical Electroencephalo- grams Using Artificial Intelligence,

    J. Tveit et al., “Automated Interpretation of Clinical Electroencephalo- grams Using Artificial Intelligence,” JAMA Neurology, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 805, 2023, doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.1645

    2023

  10. [18]

    A method to standardize a reference of scalp EEG recordings to a point at infinity,

    D. Yao, “A method to standardize a reference of scalp EEG recordings to a point at infinity,” Physiological measurement, vol. 22, no. 4, 2001, doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/22/4/305

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    Which Reference Should We Use for EEG and ERP practice?

    D. Yao et al., “Which Reference Should We Use for EEG and ERP practice?” Brain Topography, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 530-549, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10548-019-00707-x

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Prompt engineering paradigms for medical applications: scop- ing review and recommendations for better practices,

    J. Zaghir, M. Naguib, M. Bjelogrlic, A. N ´ev´eol, X. Tannier, and C. Lovis, “Prompt engineering paradigms for medical applications: scop- ing review and recommendations for better practices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01249, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,

    M. Reid et al., “Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. 14 IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Introducing the next generation of Claude,

    Anthropic, “Introducing the next generation of Claude,” March 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-family

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hello GPT-4o,

    OpenAI, “Hello GPT-4o,” May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  16. [24]

    MATLAB version R2023b, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    The global burden of neurological disorders: trans- lating evidence into policy,

    V .L. Feigin et al., “The global burden of neurological disorders: trans- lating evidence into policy,” Lancet Neurol, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 255-265, 2020, doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30411-9

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Significance of EEG Signals in Medical and Health Research,

    S. Siuly, Y . Li, and Y . Zhang, “Significance of EEG Signals in Medical and Health Research,” in Health Information Science: Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2016, pp. 23-41

    2016

  19. [27]

    Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review,

    X. Jiang, G.B. Bian, and Z. Tian, “Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 987, 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19050987

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A Review of Multitaper Spectral Analysis,

    B. Babadi and E.N. Brown, “A Review of Multitaper Spectral Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1555- 1564, 2014, doi: 10.1109/tbme.2014.2311996

    2014

  21. [29]

    Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement,

    K.L. Gwet, “Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 29-48, 2008, doi: 10.1348/000711006X126600

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    EEG Abnormal Waveforms,

    P.D. Emmady and A.C. Anilkumar, “EEG Abnormal Waveforms,” in StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Time-Frequency Analysis of Scalp EEG With Hilbert- Huang Transform and Deep Learning,

    J. Zheng et al., “Time-Frequency Analysis of Scalp EEG With Hilbert- Huang Transform and Deep Learning,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1549-1559, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2021.3110267

    2022

  24. [32]

    A Transferable Deep Learning Prognosis Model for Pre- dicting Stroke Patients’ Recovery in Different Rehabilitation Trainings,

    P.J. Lin et al., “A Transferable Deep Learning Prognosis Model for Pre- dicting Stroke Patients’ Recovery in Different Rehabilitation Trainings,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 6003-6011, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2022.3205436

    2022

  25. [33]

    Deep Learning With Convolutional Neural Net- works for Motor Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Stereo- Electroencephalography (SEEG),

    X. Wu et al., “Deep Learning With Convolutional Neural Net- works for Motor Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Stereo- Electroencephalography (SEEG),” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2387-2398, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2023.3242262

    2023

  26. [34]

    Enhancing Performance of Convolu- tional Neural Network-Based Epileptic Electroencephalogram Diagnosis by Asymmetric Stochastic Resonance,

    Z. Shi, Z. Liao, and H. Tabata, “Enhancing Performance of Convolu- tional Neural Network-Based Epileptic Electroencephalogram Diagnosis by Asymmetric Stochastic Resonance,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 4228-4239, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JBH...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Large AI Models in Health Informatics: Appli- cations, Challenges, and the Future,

    J. Qiu et al., “Large AI Models in Health Informatics: Appli- cations, Challenges, and the Future,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 6074-6087, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2023.3316750

    2023

  28. [36]

    Automated Identification of Abnormal EEGs,

    S. Lopez, “Automated Identification of Abnormal EEGs,” Master’s thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.