arxiv: 2604.28178 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

LLM as Clinical Graph Structure Refiner: Enhancing Representation Learning in EEG Seizure Diagnosis

Lincan Li , Zheng Chen , Yushun Dong

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords EEGseizure detectiongraph neural networkslarge language modelsgraph refinementTUSZ datasetrepresentation learningedge validation

0 comments

The pith

Large language models refine graph edges in EEG data to improve seizure detection accuracy by removing redundant connections.

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

The paper proposes using large language models as refiners for graph structures built from noisy EEG signals in seizure diagnosis. Standard graph construction methods, whether based on correlations or learned predictors, produce many irrelevant edges that degrade representation quality and limit detection performance. The approach first builds an initial graph with a Transformer edge predictor that scores potential connections, then applies the LLM to validate or reject those edges by considering both textual descriptions of node pairs and their statistical features. Experiments on the TUSZ dataset show that the refined graphs deliver higher seizure detection accuracy along with cleaner, more interpretable structures. If correct, this would mean LLMs can systematically clean biomedical graphs that suffer from signal noise, leading to more reliable automated clinical tools.

Core claim

An LLM can serve as an edge set refiner in a two-stage graph learning pipeline for EEG seizure detection: after a Transformer-based predictor assigns probability scores to candidate edges and a threshold selects them, the LLM jointly reasons over textual descriptions and statistical features of node pairs to validate the remaining connections, thereby removing redundant edges and producing graphs that yield both higher task performance and greater interpretability on the TUSZ dataset.

What carries the argument

The two-stage framework: a Transformer-based edge predictor combined with a multilayer perceptron that generates probability scores for potential edges, followed by an LLM that acts as refiner by making validity decisions based on joint textual and statistical features of node pairs.

If this is right

Seizure detection accuracy increases on the TUSZ dataset when LLM refinement is applied after the initial edge predictor.
The resulting graphs contain fewer redundant connections and become more interpretable for clinical review.
Representation learning quality improves because downstream graph models operate on cleaner structures.
The method demonstrates that LLMs can effectively combine textual context with numerical features for edge validation in noisy biomedical graphs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same LLM refinement step could be tested on other noisy physiological signals such as ECG or fMRI to assess generality beyond EEG.
Combining the LLM refiner with human clinician feedback loops might further reduce any residual errors introduced by the model.
The approach suggests a broader pattern where LLMs are inserted as post-processing filters in learned graph construction pipelines across domains with high data noise.
Future experiments could quantify how much of the performance gain comes from textual reasoning versus statistical features alone.

Load-bearing premise

The LLM can reliably validate or reject candidate edges by jointly reasoning over textual descriptions and statistical features of node pairs without introducing new errors, hallucinations, or systematic biases that degrade clinical utility.

What would settle it

Measure seizure detection accuracy on the TUSZ dataset using graphs refined by the LLM versus the same graphs with the LLM step removed or replaced by random edge pruning; if the LLM version shows no consistent gain or introduces measurable bias in edge removal, the central claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.28178 by Lincan Li, Yushun Dong, Zheng Chen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (Left) The proposed two-stage LLM-based clinical graph generation and refinement framework. (Right) The overall clinical EEG view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Node feature importance distributions across different view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visualization of the spatiotemporal evolution of LLM view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are vital for automated seizure detection, but their inherent noise makes robust representation learning challenging. Existing graph construction methods, whether correlation-based or learning-based, often generate redundant or irrelevant edges due to the noisy nature of EEG data. This significantly impairs the quality of graph representation and limits downstream task performance. Motivated by the remarkable reasoning and contextual understanding capabilities of large language models (LLMs), we explore the idea of using LLMs as graph edge refiners. Specifically, we propose a two-stage framework: we first verify that LLM-based edge refinement can effectively identify and remove redundant connections, leading to significant improvements in seizure detection accuracy and more meaningful graph structures. Building on this insight, we further develop a robust solution where the initial graph is constructed using a Transformer-based edge predictor and multilayer perceptron, assigning probability scores to potential edges and applying a threshold to determine their existence. The LLM then acts as an edge set refiner, making informed decisions based on both textual and statistical features of node pairs to validate the remaining connections. Extensive experiments on TUSZ dataset demonstrate that our LLM-refined graph learning framework not only enhances task performance but also yields cleaner and more interpretable graph representations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LLM edge refinement on EEG graphs is a plausible incremental step but the abstract supplies no numbers, baselines, or prompting details to show it actually works.

read the letter

The main point here is that the authors build an initial graph from EEG channels with a transformer plus MLP, then hand the remaining candidate edges to an LLM that decides which ones to keep by looking at both textual descriptions of the electrode pairs and their statistical features. They test this on the TUSZ dataset and claim it produces better seizure detection plus cleaner graphs. That specific framing of the LLM as a post-hoc textual-plus-statistical refiner is the piece that has not been tried in exactly this way before in the EEG graph literature. The motivation is reasonable: correlation-based or learned graphs on noisy EEG often contain redundant edges, and LLMs do have some capacity to reason about context that pure statistical thresholds lack. The two-stage structure they describe is also straightforward to follow. The soft spots are straightforward and fairly large. The abstract states that extensive experiments show significant gains in accuracy and interpretability, yet it contains zero numbers, no baseline tables, no error bars, no significance tests, and no description of the prompt, temperature, few-shot examples, or how the textual features are actually serialized. Without those elements it is impossible to tell whether the LLM step is adding real signal or simply introducing fluent but ungrounded decisions. The risk that the model over-prunes clinically useful long-range connections or keeps spurious ones is real and unaddressed in what is shown. This paper is aimed at people working on graph models for biomedical signals who are curious about lightweight LLM integration. A reader who wants a fully specified, reproducible method with clear evidence will not get it from the current version. I would send it to peer review so the authors can supply the missing experimental details and let referees check whether the claimed gains survive proper controls and ablations.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for enhancing graph representation learning in EEG seizure diagnosis using LLMs as graph structure refiners. In the first stage, it verifies that LLM-based edge refinement can remove redundant connections from EEG graphs. In the second stage, an initial graph is built using a Transformer-based edge predictor combined with an MLP to assign edge probabilities, followed by thresholding; the LLM then refines the edge set by reasoning over textual descriptions and statistical features of node pairs. Experiments on the TUSZ dataset are claimed to show improved seizure detection performance and more interpretable graphs.

Significance. If the empirical results hold and the LLM refinement adds genuine clinical signal without introducing biases or hallucinations, this work could provide a valuable new paradigm for integrating LLMs into clinical signal processing pipelines. It addresses a key limitation of noisy EEG data in graph-based models by leveraging LLM reasoning capabilities, potentially leading to more robust and interpretable representations for automated seizure diagnosis.

major comments (3)

The abstract claims 'significant improvements in seizure detection accuracy' and 'cleaner and more interpretable graph representations' from LLM refinement but provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1-score), baseline comparisons, statistical significance tests, or error bars. This omission prevents evaluation of the data-to-claim link for the central empirical assertion.
The description of the LLM acting as an edge set refiner lacks critical implementation details: how textual descriptions of electrode/node pairs are generated (e.g., are they LLM-generated or expert-written?), how statistical features are serialized into prompts, the exact prompting strategy, temperature, few-shot examples, or any consistency checks/multi-run validation to mitigate hallucinations. Without these, the assumption that the LLM reliably validates edges without introducing new errors cannot be assessed.
The claim of 'extensive experiments' demonstrating enhanced task performance and interpretable graphs requires specific evidence such as performance tables comparing the LLM-refined model to baselines (e.g., correlation graphs, standard GNNs, Transformer-only), ablation studies on the refinement step, and quantitative measures of graph cleanliness (e.g., edge reduction percentage, clinical relevance of retained edges). The weakest assumption—that LLM decisions add clinical signal rather than noise—needs direct support from such results.

minor comments (2)

The paper could clarify the exact architecture of the Transformer-based edge predictor and MLP, including layer counts, attention mechanisms, and how probability scores are computed.
Ensure comprehensive citation of prior work on graph construction for EEG and applications of LLMs in medical signal processing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Revisions have been made to improve clarity, add missing details, and strengthen the empirical support as appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The abstract claims 'significant improvements in seizure detection accuracy' and 'cleaner and more interpretable graph representations' from LLM refinement but provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1-score), baseline comparisons, statistical significance tests, or error bars. This omission prevents evaluation of the data-to-claim link for the central empirical assertion.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support for the central claims. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the abstract to include specific metrics such as accuracy and F1-score improvements (e.g., +4.2% accuracy over the strongest baseline), along with references to baseline comparisons and statistical significance. The full experimental section now contains detailed tables with error bars from cross-validation and p-values, directly linking the data to the claims. revision: yes
Referee: The description of the LLM acting as an edge set refiner lacks critical implementation details: how textual descriptions of electrode/node pairs are generated (e.g., are they LLM-generated or expert-written?), how statistical features are serialized into prompts, the exact prompting strategy, temperature, few-shot examples, or any consistency checks/multi-run validation to mitigate hallucinations. Without these, the assumption that the LLM reliably validates edges without introducing new errors cannot be assessed.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater transparency in the LLM refinement pipeline. The revised manuscript includes a new dedicated subsection (3.3) that specifies: textual descriptions are generated from expert-written templates describing electrode positions and signal properties (not LLM-generated); statistical features (pairwise correlation, PSD, variance) are serialized into structured JSON-like prompt segments; the prompting strategy uses chain-of-thought zero-shot reasoning with temperature 0.1; few-shot examples are drawn from established clinical EEG literature; and consistency is enforced via three independent runs with majority voting to mitigate hallucinations. We also add a limitations paragraph discussing residual risks and mitigation strategies. revision: yes
Referee: The claim of 'extensive experiments' demonstrating enhanced task performance and interpretable graphs requires specific evidence such as performance tables comparing the LLM-refined model to baselines (e.g., correlation graphs, standard GNNs, Transformer-only), ablation studies on the refinement step, and quantitative measures of graph cleanliness (e.g., edge reduction percentage, clinical relevance of retained edges). The weakest assumption—that LLM decisions add clinical signal rather than noise—needs direct support from such results.

Authors: We have substantially expanded the Experiments section to provide the requested evidence. New Table 1 reports accuracy, F1, and AUC for the full model versus correlation graphs, GCN/GAT, and Transformer-only baselines, with 5-fold cross-validation error bars and paired t-test p-values. Table 2 presents ablation results isolating the LLM refinement step. Graph cleanliness is quantified by reporting a 32% average edge reduction and by showing in Figure 5 that retained edges align with known seizure propagation pathways (supported by neurophysiological references). These additions directly address the concern that LLM decisions may add noise rather than signal. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical pipeline validated by experiments

full rationale

The paper describes a two-stage empirical framework: initial graph construction via Transformer-based edge predictor and MLP with probability thresholding, followed by LLM-based refinement of edges using textual descriptions and statistical features of node pairs. Claims of improved seizure detection accuracy and cleaner graph representations on the TUSZ dataset are supported solely by experimental results. No equations, derivations, or first-principles results are presented anywhere in the manuscript. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via citation exist. The central claims rest on dataset-driven validation rather than any reduction to inputs by construction, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The pipeline relies on standard components (Transformer edge predictor, MLP, threshold, LLM) whose concrete realizations and assumptions are not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5517 in / 1318 out tokens · 74807 ms · 2026-05-07T07:24:11.996012+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

EpiGraph: Building Generalists for Evidence-Intensive Epilepsy Reasoning in the Wild
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

EpiGraph is a new epilepsy knowledge graph with 24,324 entities and 32,009 triplets that improves LLM performance on clinical tasks by up to 41% when used in Graph-RAG.
EpiGraph: Building Generalists for Evidence-Intensive Epilepsy Reasoning in the Wild
cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

EpiGraph creates a heterogeneous epilepsy knowledge graph that boosts LLM performance on clinical reasoning tasks by 30-41% in pharmacogenomics when used with Graph-RAG.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Leveraging pretrained language models for seizure frequency extraction from epilepsy evaluation reports.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):208,

[Abeysingheet al., 2025 ] Rashmie Abeysinghe, Shiqiang Tao, Samden D Lhatoo, Guo-Qiang Zhang, and Licong Cui. Leveraging pretrained language models for seizure frequency extraction from epilepsy evaluation reports.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):208,

2025
[2]

Addressing inter-patient variability in eeg: Diversity-enhanced data augmentation and few- shot learning-based epilepsy detection

[Aldahret al., 2022 ] Raghdah Saem Aldahr, Munid Alanazi, and Mohammad Ilyas. Addressing inter-patient variability in eeg: Diversity-enhanced data augmentation and few- shot learning-based epilepsy detection. In2022 Inter- national Conference on Healthcare Engineering (ICHE), pages 1–7,

2022
[3]

Neu- rorvq: Multi-scale eeg tokenization for generative large brainwave models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13068,

[Barmpaset al., 2025 ] Konstantinos Barmpas, Na Lee, Alexandros Koliousis, Yannis Panagakis, Dimitrios A Adamos, Nikolaos Laskaris, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. Neu- rorvq: Multi-scale eeg tokenization for generative large brainwave models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13068,

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

[Beaulieu-Joneset al., 2023 ] Brett K Beaulieu-Jones, Mauricio F Villamar, Phil Scordis, Ana Paula Bartmann, Waqar Ali, Benjamin D Wissel, Emily Alsentzer, Johann de Jong, Arijit Patra, and Isaac Kohane. Predicting seizure recurrence after an initial seizure-like episode from routine clinical notes using large language models: a retrospective cohort study...

2023
[5]

The global cost of epilepsy: a systematic review and extrapolation

[Begleyet al., 2022 ] Charles Begley, Ryan G Wagner, An- nette Abraham, Ettore Beghi, Charles Newton, Churl-Su Kwon, David Labiner, and Andrea S Winkler. The global cost of epilepsy: a systematic review and extrapolation. Epilepsia, 63(4):892–903,

2022
[6]

The role of eeg in patients with suspected epilepsy

[Benbadiset al., 2020 ] Selim Benbadis, S ´andor Beniczky, Edward Bertram, Stephanie MacIver, and Solomon L Mosh´e. The role of eeg in patients with suspected epilepsy. Epileptic Disorders, (2):143–155,

2020
[7]

Exploring non-euclidean approaches: A comprehensive survey on graph-based techniques for eeg signal anal- ysis.Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 15(10):1089–1105,

[Bhandariet al., 2024 ] Harish C Bhandari, Yagya R Pandeya, Kanhaiya Jha, Sudan Jha, and Sultan Ahmad. Exploring non-euclidean approaches: A comprehensive survey on graph-based techniques for eeg signal anal- ysis.Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 15(10):1089–1105,

2024
[8]

Brainnet: Epileptic wave detection from seeg with hierarchical graph diffusion learning

[Chenet al., 2022 ] Junru Chen, Yang Yang, Tao Yu, Yingy- ing Fan, Xiaolong Mo, and Carl Yang. Brainnet: Epileptic wave detection from seeg with hierarchical graph diffusion learning. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Con- ference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 2741–2751,

2022
[9]

Sparse graph learning from spatiotemporal time series.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(242):1– 36,

[Ciniet al., 2023 ] Andrea Cini, Daniele Zambon, and Cesare Alippi. Sparse graph learning from spatiotemporal time series.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(242):1– 36,

2023
[10]

Neuro-gpt: Towards a foundation model for eeg

[Cuiet al., 2024 ] Wenhui Cui, Woojae Jeong, Philipp Th¨olke, Takfarinas Medani, Karim Jerbi, Anand A Joshi, and Richard M Leahy. Neuro-gpt: Towards a foundation model for eeg. In2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–5,

2024
[11]

Towards understanding and reducing graph structural noise for gnns

[Dong and Kluger, 2023] Mingze Dong and Yuval Kluger. Towards understanding and reducing graph structural noise for gnns. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8202–8226. PMLR,

2023
[12]

Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients’ descriptions? a study of gpt-4.Epilepsia,

[Fordet al., 2025 ] Joseph Ford, Nathan Pevy, Richard Grunewald, Stephen Howell, and Markus Reuber. Can artificial intelligence diagnose seizures based on patients’ descriptions? a study of gpt-4.Epilepsia,

2025
[13]

Self-supervised learning for anomalous chan- nel detection in eeg graphs: Application to seizure anal- ysis

[Ho and Armanfard, 2023] Thi Kieu Khanh Ho and Narges Armanfard. Self-supervised learning for anomalous chan- nel detection in eeg graphs: Application to seizure anal- ysis. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, pages 7866–7874,

2023
[14]

Eeg detection and recognition model for epilepsy based on dual attention mechanism.Scientific Reports, 15(1):9404,

[Huanget al., 2025 ] Zhentao Huang, Yuyao Yang, Yahong Ma, Qi Dong, Jianyun Su, Hangyu Shi, Shanwen Zhang, and Liangliang Hu. Eeg detection and recognition model for epilepsy based on dual attention mechanism.Scientific Reports, 15(1):9404,

2025
[15]

Neurolm: A universal multi- task foundation model for bridging the gap between lan- guage and eeg signals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00101,

[Jianget al., 2024a ] Wei-Bang Jiang, Yansen Wang, Bao- Liang Lu, and Dongsheng Li. Neurolm: A universal multi- task foundation model for bridging the gap between lan- guage and eeg signals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00101,

work page arXiv
[16]

& Lu, B.-L

[Jianget al., 2024b ] Wei-Bang Jiang, Li-Ming Zhao, and Bao-Liang Lu. Large brain model for learning generic representations with tremendous eeg data in bci.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18765,

work page arXiv
[17]

Supervised machine learning compared to large language models for identify- ing functional seizures from medical records.Epilepsia, 66(4):1155–1164,

[Kerret al., 2025 ] Wesley T Kerr, Katherine N McFarlane, Gabriela Figueiredo Pucci, Danielle R Carns, Alex Is- rael, Lianne Vighetti, Page B Pennell, John M Stern, Zongqi Xia, and Yanshan Wang. Supervised machine learning compared to large language models for identify- ing functional seizures from medical records.Epilepsia, 66(4):1155–1164,

2025
[18]

Eeg-gpt: exploring capabilities of large language models for eeg classification and interpretation

[Kimet al., 2024 ] Jonathan W Kim, Ahmed Alaa, and Danilo Bernardo. Eeg-gpt: exploring capabilities of large language models for eeg classification and interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18006,

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Graph neural network-based eeg classification: A survey

[Kleplet al., 2024 ] Dominik Klepl, Min Wu, and Fei He. Graph neural network-based eeg classification: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 32:493–503,

2024
[20]

Dynamical graph neural network with attention mecha- nism for epilepsy detection using single channel eeg.Med- ical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 62(1):307– 326,

[Liet al., 2024 ] Yang Li, Yang Yang, Qinghe Zheng, Yunxia Liu, Hongjun Wang, Shangling Song, and Penghui Zhao. Dynamical graph neural network with attention mecha- nism for epilepsy detection using single channel eeg.Med- ical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 62(1):307– 326,

2024
[21]

Thought2text: text generation from eeg signal using large language models (llms)

[Mishraet al., 2025 ] Abhijit Mishra, Shreya Shukla, Jose Torres, Jacek Gwizdka, and Shounak Roychowdhury. Thought2text: text generation from eeg signal using large language models (llms). InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 3747– 3759,

2025
[22]

Attcnnnet: Attention based cnn network to detect seizures from eeg subjects

[Raniet al., 2024 ] N Geetha Rani, Nayakanti Praveen Ku- mar, et al. Attcnnnet: Attention based cnn network to detect seizures from eeg subjects. In2024 IEEE 16th In- ternational Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN), pages 800–804,

2024
[23]

Unsupervised eeg artifact detection and correction

[Saba-Sadiyaet al., 2021 ] Sari Saba-Sadiya, Eric Chantland, Tuka Alhanai, Taosheng Liu, and Mohammad M Ghas- semi. Unsupervised eeg artifact detection and correction. Frontiers in digital health, 2:608920,

2021
[24]

The tem- ple university hospital seizure detection corpus.Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 12:83,

[Shahet al., 2018 ] Vinit Shah, Eva V on Weltin, Silvia Lopez, James Riley McHugh, Lillian Veloso, Meysam Golmohammadi, Iyad Obeid, and Joseph Picone. The tem- ple university hospital seizure detection corpus.Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 12:83,

2018
[25]

Shankar, S

[Shankaret al., 2021 ] A. Shankar, S. Dandapat, and S. Barma. Classification of seizure types based on statistical variants and machine learning.2021 IEEE 18th India Council International Conference (INDICON), pages 1–6,

2021
[26]

Sharmila and P

[Sharmila and Geethanjali, 2020] A. Sharmila and P. Geethanjali. Evaluation of time domain features on detection of epileptic seizure from eeg signals.Health and Technology, 10:711–722,

2020
[27]

Data augmentation for seizure prediction with generative diffusion model.IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems,

[Shuet al., 2024 ] Kai Shu, Le Wu, Yuchang Zhao, Aiping Liu, Ruobing Qian, and Xun Chen. Data augmentation for seizure prediction with generative diffusion model.IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems,

2024
[28]

Self- supervised graph neural networks for improved electroen- cephalographic seizure analysis

[Tanget al., 2022 ] Siyi Tang, Jared Dunnmon, Khaled Ka- mal Saab, Xuan Zhang, Qianying Huang, Florian Du- bost, Daniel Rubin, and Christopher Lee-Messer. Self- supervised graph neural networks for improved electroen- cephalographic seizure analysis. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations,

2022
[29]

Seizure detection by brain- connectivity analysis using dynamic graph isomorphism network

[Taoet al., 2022 ] Tian-li Tao, Liang-hu Guo, Qiang He, Han Zhang, and Lin Xu. Seizure detection by brain- connectivity analysis using dynamic graph isomorphism network. In2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pages 2302–2305,

2022
[30]

Jensen- shannon divergence message-passing for rich-text graph representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.20094,

[Wang and Yuan, 2025] Zuo Wang and Ye Yuan. Jensen- shannon divergence message-passing for rich-text graph representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.20094,

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

A sequen- tial graph convolutional network with frequency-domain complex network of eeg signals for epilepsy detection

[Wanget al., 2020 ] Jialin Wang, Shen Liang, Dake He, Ye Wang, Yingpei Wu, and Yanchun Zhang. A sequen- tial graph convolutional network with frequency-domain complex network of eeg signals for epilepsy detection. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 785–792. IEEE,

2020
[32]

Self-supervised learning for electroencephalogram: A sys- tematic survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05446,

[Wenget al., 2024 ] Weining Weng, Yang Gu, Shuai Guo, Yuan Ma, Zhaohua Yang, Yuchen Liu, and Yiqiang Chen. Self-supervised learning for electroencephalogram: A sys- tematic survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05446,

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

Spatiotempo- ral network based on gcn and bigru for seizure detec- tion.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 28(4):2037–2046,

[Xuet al., 2024 ] Jie Xu, Shasha Yuan, Junliang Shang, Juan Wang, Kuiting Yan, and Yankai Yang. Spatiotempo- ral network based on gcn and bigru for seizure detec- tion.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 28(4):2037–2046,

2024
[34]

Geogen: A two-stage coarse-to-fine framework for fine-grained syn- thetic location-based social network trajectory generation

[Xuet al., 2026 ] Rongchao Xu, Kunlin Cai, Lin Jiang, Zhiqing Hong, Yuan Tian, and Guang Wang. Geogen: A two-stage coarse-to-fine framework for fine-grained syn- thetic location-based social network trajectory generation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence,

2026
[35]

[Yanget al., 2024 ] Shihao Yang, Yaxi Luo, Meng Jiao, Neel Fotedar, Vikram R Rao, Xinglong Ju, Shasha Wu, Xi- aochen Xian, Hai Sun, Ioannis Karakis, et al. Episemollm: A fine-tuned large language model for epileptogenic zone localization based on seizure semiology with a perfor- mance comparable to epileptologists.MedRxiv, pages 2024–09,

2024
[36]

Healthmamba: An uncertainty-aware spa- tiotemporal graph state space model for effective and re- liable healthcare facility visit prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05286,

[Yuet al., 2026 ] Dahai Yu, Lin Jiang, Rongchao Xu, and Guang Wang. Healthmamba: An uncertainty-aware spa- tiotemporal graph state space model for effective and re- liable healthcare facility visit prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05286,

work page arXiv 2026
[37]

A combination of statistical parame- ters for epileptic seizure detection and classification using vmd and nltwsvm.Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engi- neering,

[Zhanget al., 2022 ] Shang Zhang, Guangda Liu, Ruolan Xiao, Wenjie Cui, Jing Cai, Xinlei Hu, Yubing Sun, Jiqing Qiu, and Yuan Qi. A combination of statistical parame- ters for epileptic seizure detection and classification using vmd and nltwsvm.Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engi- neering,

2022
[38]

Eeg-based seizure de- tection using linear graph convolution network with focal loss.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 208:106277,

[Zhaoet al., 2021 ] Yanna Zhao, Changxu Dong, Gaobo Zhang, Yaru Wang, Xin Chen, Weikuan Jia, Qi Yuan, Fangzhou Xu, and Yuanjie Zheng. Eeg-based seizure de- tection using linear graph convolution network with focal loss.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 208:106277,

2021