| Literature DB >> 35529257 |
Arshpreet Kaur1, Suneet Gupta2, M Kathiravan3, Syed Nasrullah4, Chayan Paul5, Saima Ahmed Rahin6.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is now widely used in clinical examinations and medical research in many fields. Resting-state magnetoencephalography-based brain network analysis can be used to study the physiological or pathological mechanisms of the brain. Furthermore, magnetoencephalography analysis has a significant reference value for the diagnosis of epilepsy. The scope of the proposed research is that this research demonstrates how to locate spikes in the phase locking functional brain connectivity network of the Desikan-Killiany brain region division using a neural network approach. It also improves detection accuracy and reduces missed and false detection rates. The automatic classification of epilepsy encephalomagnetic signals can make timely judgments on the patient's condition, which is of tremendous clinical significance. The existing literature's research on the automatic type of epilepsy EEG signals is relatively sufficient, but the research on epilepsy EEG signals is relatively weak. A full-band machine learning automatic discrimination method of epilepsy brain magnetic spikes based on the brain functional connection network is proposed. The four classifiers are comprehensively compared. The classifier with the best effect is selected, and the discrimination accuracy can reach 93.8%. Therefore, this method has a good application prospect in automatically identifying and labeling epileptic spikes in magnetoencephalography.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35529257 PMCID: PMC9071857 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7793946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Partition map of 68 brain regions in the whole brain.
Band correspondence table.
| Band number | Band name | Frequency range (Hz) |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | Delta | 0.1~3 |
| F2 | Theta | 4~7 |
| F3 | Alpha | 8~12 |
| F4 | Beta | 15~29 |
| F5 | Gamma1 | 30~59 |
| F6 | Gamma2 | 60~80 |
| F7 | Ripple | 81~250 |
Figure 2Phase locking value matrix.
Accuracy distribution table based on Naive Bayes classifier model.
| Data | Classification accuracy |
|---|---|
| plv | 0.444 |
| plv_real | 0.444 |
| plv_imag | 0.472 |
| plv_angle | 0.417 |
| plv_abs | 0.917 |
Comparison of classification accuracy and AUC results of different models based on original data.
| Model | Raw feature data accuracy | AUC |
|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.771 | 0.716 |
| SVC_linear | 0.833 | 0.985 |
| SVC_RBF | 0.500 | 0.854 |
| Gaussian NB | 0.875 | 0.914 |
Figure 3Experimental flow chart.
Figure 4ROC plots of raw data.
Comparison of classification accuracy and AUC results of different models based on standardized data.
| Model | Standardized feature data accuracy | AUC |
|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.917 | 0.914 |
| SVC_linear | 0.917 | 0.903 |
| SVC_rbf | 0.938 | 0.951 |
| GaussianNB | 0.896 | 0.912 |
Figure 5ROC plots of normalized raw data.
Comparison of classifier accuracy under different feature selection methods.
| Model | Chi-squared test to extract features |
| Data after iterative feature removal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.833 | 0.833 | 0.750 |
| SVM (kernel:linear) | 0.896 | 0.792 | 0.750 |
| SVM (kernel:rbf) | 0.833 | 0.854 | 0.833 |
| GaussianNB | 0.917 | 0.917 | 0.875 |
Figure 6Comparison of learning classification ROC based on chi-squared test to extract features.
Figure 7Comparison of learning classification ROC based on F test feature extraction.
Figure 8Comparison of learning classification ROC based on features after iterative feature elimination.
AUC comparison of each model under different feature selection methods.
| Model | Chi-squared test to extract features |
| Data after iterative feature removal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.905 | 0.914 | 0.845 |
| SVM (kernel:linear) | 0.965 | 0.878 | 0.854 |
| SVM (kernel:rbf) | 0.951 | 0.938 | 0.907 |
| GaussianNB | 0.951 | 0.951 | 0.919 |