Cited by 126EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchEmotion and Mood Recognition

Recurrent neural network-based approach for early recognition of Alzheimer's disease in EEG

Petrosian, A.A., Prokhorov, D.V., Lajara-Nanson, W., Schiffer, R.B.·2001·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective We explored the ability of specifically designed and trained recurrent neural networks (RNNs), combined with wavelet preprocessing, to discriminate between the electroencephalograms (EEGs) of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their age-matched control subjects. Methods Twomin recordings of resting eyes-closed continuous EEGs (as well as their wavelet-filtered subbands) obtained from parieto-occipital channels of 10 early AD patients and 10 healthy controls were input into RNNs for training and testing purposes. The RNNs were chosen because they can implement extremely non-linear decision boundaries and possess memory of the state, which is crucial for the considered task. Results The best training/testing results were achieved using a 3-layer RNN on left parietal channel level 4 high-pass wavelet subbands. When trained on 3 AD and 3 control recordings, the resulting RNN tested well on all remaining controls and 5 out of 7 AD patients. This represented a significantly better than chance performance of about 80% sensitivity at 100% specificity. Conclusion The suggested combined wavelet/RNN approach may be useful in analyzing long-term continuous EEGs for early recognition of AD. This approach should be extended on larger patient populations before its clinical diagnostic value can be established. Further lines of investigation might also require that EEGs be recorded from patients engaged in certain mental (cognitive) activities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1388-2457(01)00579-x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrosian, A. A., Prokhorov, D. V., Lajara-Nanson, W., & Schiffer, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • Ford Motor Company (United States) (US)
  • Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Corresponding author
Petrosian, A.A.
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-08
Volume
112
Issue
8
Pages
1378-1387
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997792515
Cited by
126
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, early diagnosis, EEG, recurrent neural networks, wavelet filtering, EEG classification, resting-state EEG
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Diagnosis, Differential, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Nerve Net, Predictive Value of Tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review