This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study presents a cross-frequency coupling (CFC)-enhanced Graph-Transformer Network for multichannel EEG seizure/non-seizure classification. The architecture combines PAC/PPC descriptors, a residual convolutional encoder, learnable graph attention over post-CNN temporal nodes, and a lightweight Transformer encoder. Evaluation on the CHB-MIT scalp EEG database comprises a random window split and case-wise five-fold cross-validation. The case-wise protocol yielded 67.16 ± 5.58% accuracy, 0.617 ± 0.214 recall, 0.630 ± 0.132 F1-score, and 0.748 ± 0.067 AUROC. Its mean AUROC was numerically higher than those of protocol-matched CNN-BiLSTM and EEGNet-like baselines (0.731 and 0.693, respectively). The random 70%/15%/15% split yielded 99.38% accuracy and 99.93% AUROC; an overlap diagnostic found shared raw samples in 91.0% of test windows, defining these scores as within-protocol reference results. Random-window ablation rankings are supplementary observations; the held-out-case comparisons provide the principal comparative results. CFC sensitivity analysis found an EMG-proxy-adjusted theta-to-low-gamma PAC association with class labels, while the circular-shift surrogate-corrected contrast was not significant. Continuous-event evaluation yielded 1.000 sensitivity and 22.39 false alarms per hour, and zero-shot Siena evaluation yielded 47.73% balanced accuracy and 0.427 AUROC. The study provides an integrated EEG representation framework and a protocol-specific performance profile. The five-fold results concern held-out case identifiers, with chb01 and chb21 retained in separate folds; they are distinguished from subject-grouped evaluation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: