MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000769683 · doi:10.1080/10255840902882158

Electrocardiogram data mining based on frame classification by dynamic time warping matching

2009· article· en· W2000769683 on OpenAlexaff
Gong Zhang, Witold Kinsner, Bin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic time warpingFrame (networking)Computer scienceResidualMatching (statistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Data setSpeech recognitionMathematicsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an electrocardiogram (ECG) data mining scheme based on the ECG frame classification realised by a dynamic time warping (DTW) matching technique, which has been used successfully in speech recognition. We use the DTW to classify ECG frames because ECG and speech signals have similar non-stationary characteristics. The DTW mapping function is obtained by searching the frame from its end to start. A threshold is setup for DTW matching residual either to classify an ECG frame or to add a new class. Classification and establishment of a template set are carried out simultaneously. A frame is classified into a category with a minimal residual and satisfying a threshold requirement. A classification residual of 1.33% is achieved by the DTW for a 10-min ECG recording.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207