MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037857866 · doi:10.1109/memea.2013.6549738

New sampling approach for wireless ECG systems with compressed sensing theory

2013· article· en· W2037857866 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Balouchestani, Kaamran Raahemifar, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWirelessCompressed sensingSampling (signal processing)Health careReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs) consist of small intelligent biomedical wireless sensors attached on or implanted to the body to collect vital biomedical data such as electrocardiogram (ECG) signals to provide continuous health monitoring systems for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. ECG signals are widely used in health care systems because they are noninvasive mechanisms to establish medical diagnosis of heart diseases. In order to fully exploit the benefits of WBANs to Electronic Health (EH), Mobile Health (MH), and Ambulatory Health Monitoring Systems (AHMS) the power consumption and sampling rate should be restricted to a minimum. With this in mind, Compressed Sensing (CS) procedure and the collaboration of Block Sparse Bayesian Learning (BSBL) framework is used to provide new sampling approach for wireless ECG systems with CS theory. Advanced wireless ECG systems based on our approach will be able to deliver healthcare not only to patients in hospital and medical centers; but also in their homes and workplaces thus offering cost saving, and improving the quality of life. Our simulation results illustrate 25% reduction of Percentage Root-mean-square Difference (PRD) and a good level of quality for Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), sampling-rate, and power consumption.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207