MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867834129 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2015.7129341

Online ECG quality assessment for context-aware wireless body area networks

2015· article· en· W1867834129 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana P. Tobón, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUSableComputer scienceWirelessBandwidth (computing)Context (archaeology)Real-time computingNoise (video)Artificial intelligenceComputer networkTelecommunicationsMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiogram (ECG) signals are commonly used in wireless body area networks (WBAN), particularly for patient monitoring applications. ECGs, however, are sensitive to various types of noise sources, including but not limited to: powerline interference, movement, muscle and breathing artefacts. Such sensitivity is increased when burgeoning lower-cost sensors, such as textile ECG sensors, are used. Transmission of noisy ECGs can be troublesome for various reasons. For example, it consumes bandwidth, battery life, and storage space with signals that convey little cardiac information. Moreover, noisy signals may cause false alarms in automated patient monitoring systems, thus increasing the burden on medical personnel. In this paper, we describe a new ECG quality index based on the so-called modulation spectral signal representation. Two classifiers are tested to discriminate between usable and non-usable ECG segments. When applied within a quality-aware WBAN application, we show savings of up to 65% in storage space relative to a traditional scheme.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207