ArticleScientific reports2025
EEG-based neurodegenerative disease diagnosis: comparative analysis of conventional methods and deep learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The AHEPA EEG benchmark: setting the standard for machine learning in dementia diagnosis, a scoping review.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Article
- Brain Signal for Secure EEG Biometric Authentication: A Comprehensive Survey.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A deep-SVM hybrid framework with enhanced EEG feature engineering and SHAP-based explainability for Alzheimer's classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The application of artificial intelligence models in predicting the risk of diabetic foot: a multicenter study.BioData mining · 2025Article
- The Role of Quantitative EEG in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Olfactory EEG based Alzheimer disease classification through transformer based feature fusion with tunableFrontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of lifestyle changes, stress and other environmental factors have resulted in the sudden hike in dementia globally. This necessitates investigations with respect to every horizon of the due cause for it; further on, the diagnosis and treatments can be advanced with the aid of technology. This work attempts to conduct one such investigation on dementia diagnosis based on EEG signals. The implementation is carried out under three different verticals. Firstly, a conventional machine learning model was developed post-pre-processing, and feature extraction from the power spectral density was done using a Random Forest classifier. Second, 1D Convolutional Neural Networks models are developed, and pre-processed EEG signals are fed as input. Third, stacked spectrogram images are computed from decomposed EEG signals and are fed to 2D CNN models for classification. The investigations are performed on three different benchmark datasets. Across three datasets, the class labels include cognitively normal, frontotemporal dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's. The study offers a comparative evaluation across three distinct datasets, illustrating that deep learning models, particularly 1D and 2D CNNs, consistently outperform conventional methods in recognizing subtle EEG signal patterns linked to neurodegenerative conditions. For instance, in Dataset 1, the 2D CNN achieved the highest accuracy of 91.13%, surpassing the Random Forest model's 84.78% accuracy. Nevertheless, the investigation also points out challenges in Dataset 3, indicating the necessity for further model optimization tailored to specific datasets. Statistical tests validate the findings. This study showcases a comparative investigation of the potential of deep learning models vs. conventional classifiers in clinical environments for the early diagnosis of dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.