This study presents a validation-aware EEG framework based on Chaotic Pattern of Prime Numbers (CPPN) features for depression treatment-response modelling across one SSRI cohort and two rTMS cohorts. CPPN features were evaluated through a seven-protocol validation hierarchy spanning random segment splitting, segment-level cross-validation, nested segment-level cross-validation, leave-N-subjects-out, fixed-feature leave-one-subject-out (LOSO), nested leave-N-subjects-out, and nested LOSO, with normalisation, NCA ranking, feature-count selection where applicable, and model fitting confined to the appropriate training partitions. In the representative K-nearest neighbour (KNN) comparison, segment-level 10-fold CV achieved accuracies of 98.79% for Mumtaz SSRI, 99.32% for small Atieh rTMS, and 99.42% for big Atieh rTMS, demonstrating strong discriminative structure in the CPPN feature space. In the available segment-level KNN comparison, CPPN features with fold-internal NCA-selected feature sets exceeded conventional statistical EEG features by 29.53, 16.33, and 11.45 percentage points across the three cohorts. Subject-wise validation produced lower and more cohort-dependent estimates, with the best fixed-feature LOSO accuracy of 80.00% and the best nested LOSO accuracy of 73.33% in the small Atieh rTMS cohort. These results show that CPPN provides a compact, inspectable and computationally accessible EEG feature representation, while the validation hierarchy gives a transparent account of how performance changes from segment-level separability to held-out-subject evaluation. The main contribution is methodological: this study combines an original CPPN feature representation with explicit validation-depth analysis, leakage-aware feature selection, and interpretable channel/bin inspection. It therefore provides a rigorous basis for future externally validated EEG treatment-response studies without claiming prospective clinical deployment from the present retrospective cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: