Improvement of ballistocardiogram processing by inclusion of respiration information
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper a novel methodology for processing of a ballistocardiogram (BCG) is proposed in which the respiration signal is utilized to improve the averaging of the BCG signal and ultimately the annotation and interpretation of the signal. Previous research works filtered out the respiration signal while the novelty of the current research is that, rather than removing the respiration effect from the signal, we utilize the respiration information to improve the averaging and thus analysis and interpretation of the BCG signal in diagnosis of cardiac malfunctions. This methodology is based on our investigation that BCG cycles corresponding to the inspiration and expiration phases of the respiration cycle are different in morphology. BCG cycles corresponding to the expiration phase of respiration have been proved to be more closely related to each other when compared to cycles corresponding to inspiration, and therefore expiration cycles are better candidates to be selected for the calculation of the averaged BCG signal. The new BCG average calculated based on this methodology is then considered as the representative and a template of the BCG signal for further processing. This template can be considered as the output of a clinical BCG instrument with higher reliability and accuracy compared to the previous processing methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it