MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028676318 · doi:10.1109/memb.2006.1657791

A wavelet approach to detecting electrocautery noise in the ECG

2006· article· en· W2028676318 on OpenAlexaff
Chris J. Brouse, Guy A. Dumont, Felix J. Herrmann, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Computer scienceSoftwareWaveletSIGNAL (programming language)Wavelet transformArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Real-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A software approach has been developed for detecting electrocautery noise in the electrocardiogram (ECG) using a wavelet decomposition of the signal. With this approach, a clinical monitoring expert system can be forewarned of potential artifacts in trend values derived from the ECG, allowing it to proceed with caution when making decisions based on these trends. In 15 operations spanning 38.5 h of ECG data, we achieved a false positive rate of 0.71% and a false negative rate of 0.33%. While existing hardware approaches detect the source of the noise without any ability to assess its impact on the measured ECG, our software approach detects the presence of noise in the signal itself. Furthermore, the software approach is cheaper and easier to implement in a clinical environment than existing hardware approaches

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology MagazineSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207