MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990956587 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2014.2360156

Automatic Annotation of Seismocardiogram With High-Frequency Precordial Accelerations

2014· article· en· W1990956587 on OpenAlexafffund
Farzad Khosrow-Khavar, Kouhyar Tavakolian, Andrew P. Blaber, John M. Zanetti, Reza Fazel-Rezai, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvelope (radar)Computer-supported cooperative workAccelerometerPrecordial examinationWaveformHilbert transformAnnotationSIGNAL (programming language)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceElectrocardiographySpeech recognitionComputer visionWork (physics)PhysicsRadarMedicineTelecommunicationsCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismocardiogram (SCG) is the low-frequency vibrations signal recorded from the chest using accelerometers. Peaks on dorsoventral and sternal SCG correspond to specific cardiac events. Prior research work has shown the potential of extracting such peaks for various types of monitoring and diagnosis applications. However, annotation of these peaks is not a trivial task and complicated in some subjects. In this paper, an automated method is proposed to annotate these peaks. The high-frequency accelerations obtained from the same accelerometer, used to record SCG with, were used to facilitate the annotation of the SCG. Algorithms were developed for detection of isovolumic moment (IM) and aortic valve closure (AC) points of SCG. Four different envelope calculation methods were used: cardiac sound characteristic waveform (CSCW), Shannon, absolute, and Hilbert. The algorithms were evaluated based on a dataset including 18 subjects undergoing lower body negative pressure and were further tested with another dataset, which included 67 subjects. These datasets had been previously manually annotated. The algorithm based on CSCW envelope calculation produced the highest detection accuracy for both IM and AC. The overall CSCW algorithm detection accuracy for the test dataset was 98.7% and 99.1% for the IM and AC points, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207