Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with a development of a segmentation technique for electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. Such segmentation is aimed at a lossy signal compression in which each segment can be captured by a simple geometric construct such as, e.g., a linear or quadratic function. The crux of the proposed construct lies in the determination of the optimal segments of data over which they exhibit the highest possible monotonicity (or lowest variability) of the ECG signal. In this sense, the proposed approach generalizes a fundamental and commonly encountered problem of function (data) linearization. The segments are genetically developed using a standard technique of genetic algorithms (GAs). The two fundamental GA constructs, namely a topology of a chromosome and a fitness function governing the optimization process are discussed in detail. The chromosome being coded as a series of floating point numbers contains the endpoints of the segments (segmentation points). The fitness function to be maximized quantifies a level of monotonicity of the ECG data encountered within the segments and takes into consideration differences between the extreme values (minimum and maximum) of its derivatives. As a result of the genetic optimization, we build segments of ECG signals encompassing monotonic (increasing or decreasing) regions of the signal exhibiting a minimal level of variability. A series of experiments dealing with several classes of ECG signals (namely, normal, left bundle branch block beat, and right bundle branch block beat) visualize the effectiveness of the approach and shows the specificity of the linear segments of data. Furthermore, we elaborate on the relationship between the values of the fitness function and the approximation capabilities (quantified by a sum of squared errors between the local model and the data) of the segments of the signal and show that these two descriptors are highly related.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".