Assessing Electrocardiogram and Respiratory Signal Quality of a Wearable Device (SensEcho): Semisupervised Machine Learning-Based Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With the development and promotion of wearable devices and their mobile health (mHealth) apps, physiological signals have become a research hotspot. However, noise is complex in signals obtained from daily lives, making it difficult to analyze the signals automatically and resulting in a high false alarm rate. At present, screening out the high-quality segments of the signals from huge-volume data with few labels remains a problem. Signal quality assessment (SQA) is essential and is able to advance the valuable information mining of signals. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to design an SQA algorithm based on the unsupervised isolation forest model to classify the signal quality into 3 grades: good, acceptable, and unacceptable; validate the algorithm on labeled data sets; and apply the algorithm on real-world data to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: Data used in this study were collected by a wearable device (SensEcho) from healthy individuals and patients. The observation windows for electrocardiogram (ECG) and respiratory signals were 10 and 30 seconds, respectively. In the experimental procedure, the unlabeled training set was used to train the models. The validation and test sets were labeled according to preset criteria and used to evaluate the classification performance quantitatively. The validation set consisted of 3460 and 2086 windows of ECG and respiratory signals, respectively, whereas the test set was made up of 4686 and 3341 windows of signals, respectively. The algorithm was also compared with self-organizing maps (SOMs) and 4 classic supervised models (logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting). One case validation was illustrated to show the application effect. The algorithm was then applied to 1144 cases of ECG signals collected from patients and the detected arrhythmia false alarms were calculated. RESULTS: The quantitative results showed that the ECG SQA model achieved 94.97% and 95.58% accuracy on the validation and test sets, respectively, whereas the respiratory SQA model achieved 81.06% and 86.20% accuracy on the validation and test sets, respectively. The algorithm was superior to SOM and achieved moderate performance when compared with the supervised models. The example case showed that the algorithm was able to correctly classify the signal quality even when there were complex pathological changes in the signals. The algorithm application results indicated that some specific types of arrhythmia false alarms such as tachycardia, atrial premature beat, and ventricular premature beat could be significantly reduced with the help of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: This study verified the feasibility of applying the anomaly detection unsupervised model to SQA. The application scenarios include reducing the false alarm rate of the device and selecting signal segments that can be used for further research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».