Feature-Engineering Strategies for EEG-Based ADHD Classification in Children: A Controlled Benchmark of Expert, LLM-Guided and Full-Space Comparators
Rohani, F.; Alhatab, H.; Jarrud, M.; Salous, N.; Kasimoglu, S.; Mueller, A.
Show abstract
EEG-based machine-learning studies of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are vulnerable to optimistic performance estimates when feature selection or model choice is informed by data outside the training fold. We compared expert-reconstructed, large language model (LLM)-guided and full-space feature strategies under leakage-controlled subject-level validation in a frozen cohort of 77 children (45 ADHD, 32 controls) represented by 1,185 gamma-free EEG features. Four classifiers (SVM, GMM, random forest [RF] and XGBoost) were evaluated with nested leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOOCV), with all data-dependent operations restricted to outer-training subjects. Across 100 repetitions of stratified 10-fold cross-validation, RF/expert achieved mean accuracy 62.8% (SD 3.5%; empirical 95% interval 55.8% -- 69.5%), mean balanced accuracy 62.3% and mean AUC-ROC 0.618. The corresponding LOOCV point estimate was 71.4% accuracy and 71.0% balanced accuracy (AUC-ROC 0.673). GMM/expert achieved the highest AUC-ROC (0.699), indicating metric-dependent model ranking. The expert-reconstructed strategy achieved the highest accuracy and balanced accuracy for every classifier, whereas the LLM-guided strategy showed no consistent advantage over the full feature space. Pairwise classifier differences were not significant after Holm correction. A pre-specified 200 V artifact gate reduced RF/expert accuracy to approximately 55.8%, below the 58.4% no-information rate; this drop may reflect removal of artifact-related signal and/or reduced epoch counts leading to noisier feature estimates. These findings support cautious benchmarking and external validation rather than claims of algorithmic or LLM superiority. Keywords: ADHD; electroencephalography; machine learning; benchmarking; feature engineering; subject-level validation; nested cross-validation; random forest; clinical prediction
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Automated Preprocessing Pipe-Line for the Estimation of Scale-wise Entropy from EEG Data (APPLESEED): Development and validation for use in pediatric populations 92%
- Automatic classification of ICA components from infant EEG using MARA 91%
- From Breath to Brain: NICU Respiratory Interventions and Bedside Brain Signal Entropy Predict Later Autism Risk 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- ROC Analysis of Biomarker Combinations in Fragile X Syndrome-Specific Clinical Trials: Evaluating Treatment Efficacy via Exploratory Biomarkers 92%
- Electrophysiological effects of psilocybin co-administered with midazolam 90%
- Reliably quantifying the severity of social symptoms in children with autism using ASDSpeech 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Infant low-frequency EEG cortical power, cortical tracking and phase-amplitude coupling predicts language a year later. 92%
- Fat tails, fat earnings, fat mistakes: On the need to disclose distribution parameters of qEEG databases 92%
- The impact of paediatric epilepsy and co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders on functional brain networks in wake and sleep 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of premature extrauterine exposure on infants’ stimulus-evoked brain activity across multiple sensory systems 90%
- Linking alpha oscillations, attention and inhibitory control in adult ADHD with EEG neurofeedback 90%
- NeuroMark: a fully automated ICA method to identify effective fMRI markers of brain disorders 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reliability of Mismatch Negativity Event-Related Potentials in a Multisite, Traveling Subjects Study 92%
- Optimizing automated detection of high frequency oscillations using visual markings does not improve SOZ localization 90%
- Sensory event-related potential morphology predicts age in premature infants 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.