Why the study?
In-device processing with machine learning algorithms can accelerate monitoring of syndromes such as epilepsy and minimize privacy disclosure risks from cloud data transmission, but algorithm accuracy and computational cost for wearable devices require investigation.
Which machine learning algorithm provides the best accuracy and lowest computational cost for in-device epileptic seizure detection?
Which machine learning algorithm provides the best accuracy and lowest computational cost for in-device epileptic seizure detection?
Random Forest provides an optimal balance of high diagnostic accuracy and low computational cost for wearable-based epileptic seizure detection.
RF may suit low-cost wearable seizure detection; leaves open prospective clinical validation before adoption.
Wearable devices increasing popularity provide convenient alternatives to healthcare services outside hospital premises. Wearables provide enhancements for automatic tools to assist physicians during patient diagnosis, treatment, and many other situations with limited costs and computing resources. In this context, in-device processing using machine learning algorithms can accelerate syndromes monitoring such as epilepsy detection and minimize risks of privacy disclosure due to extended data transmission to cloud servers. In this paper, we investigate the performance of five machine learning algorithms, i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Neural Network (NN), in terms of accuracy to diagnose a syndrome and the computational cost to embed it in a wearable device. We tested the algorithms in the classification of an Electroencephalography (EEG) sampled dataset available at the UCI machine learning repository. From the results, we concluded that SVM and RF have good accuracy in identifying epileptic seizures from the EEG dataset. Additionally, only RF fulfills the low computational cost required to embed such applications in-device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Resque et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: