Key result
Artifact rejection prior to CNN-based abnormal versus normal EEG classification did not improve test accuracy (84% with vs 84% without artifact rejection) but slightly reduced the number of required training epochs.
Why the study?
Does artifact rejection improve the performance of a CNN-based algorithm for classifying abnormal versus normal EEG data?
Does artifact rejection improve the performance of a CNN-based algorithm for classifying abnormal versus normal EEG data?
Artifact rejection prior to CNN-based EEG classification does not improve accuracy but slightly speeds up training, suggesting it can be omitted to simplify clinical application.
Artifact rejection may boost CNN accuracy for EEG classification; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
Evaluate the effect of artifact rejection on the performance of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based algorithm for classification of abnormal and normal electroencephalography (EEG) data. We developed an automated CNN-based clean versus artifact classification algorithm and applied this to abnormal and normal EEG data. Additionally, algorithms for abnormal versus normal classification were developed with and without artifact rejection beforehand. For each algorithm, five CNNs were trained using 5-fold cross-validation and the majority vote of these was used for classification of test data. We compared bootstrap test accuracies and the number of training epochs required between the scenario in which artifacts were rejected and the scenario in which they were not. The clean versus artifact classification algorithm had a test accuracy of 85% (recall:89%, precision:82%). Bootstrap test accuracies of the abnormal versus normal classification algorithms were similar with and without artifact rejection beforehand (mean [95% CI]:84% [77%-91%] and 84% [76%-91%], respectively). For the five cross-validation runs, respectively −8%, 22%, 31%, −94% and 26% less training epochs were required when artifacts were rejected beforehand. In our study, EEG artifact rejection did not improve CNN-based abnormal versus normal classification performance, but did slightly speed up training. In our study, artifact rejection was not required. The possibility to omit this step lowers the threshold for applying CNNs to EEG data and using these in clinical practice. Future studies should confirm whether this step could also be omitted in case other artificial intelligence techniques are applied to different datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stigt et al. (2023) studied EEG abnormalities (n=2,383). Artifact rejection vs. No artifact rejection was evaluated on Bootstrap test accuracy of abnormal versus normal classification (95% CI 77-91). Artifact rejection prior to CNN-based abnormal versus normal EEG classification did not improve test accuracy (84% with vs 84% without artifact rejection) but slightly reduced the number of required training epochs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: