MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968956770 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2010.5625966

Determining levels of arousal using electrocardiography: A study of HRV during transcranial magnetic stimulation

2010· article· en· W1968956770 on OpenAlexaff
J Goldie, Carolyn McGregor, Bernadette Murphy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArousalHeart rate variabilityElectrocardiographyTranscranial magnetic stimulationHeart rateAffect (linguistics)Autonomic nervous systemStimulationAudiologyPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscienceCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Electrocardiography (ECG) can be used to collect heart rate data which in turn can be used to measure heart rate variability (HRV). The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems have the ability to affect this variability, which can ultimately affect arousal levels. Background. This study was designed to determine if changes to HRV can be detected while subjects undergo transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and if these changes are from decreased arousal. Methods. LabChart™ software was utilized to collect and analyze initial heart rate data to generate R-R intervals. Further analysis was then performed in order to determine RRV3 and RRV8-3. Results. Low arousal levels were detected in 5 of the 6 analyses, demonstrating that the subjects' arousal levels changed throughout the experiment. Conclusion. HRV effectively measures arousal levels. Future research should be done involving continuous collection of heart rate during TMS to allow for a cross comparison between time of low arousal states and potential changes to TMS data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207