MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075023189 · doi:10.1002/sec.227

Medical biometrics in mobile health monitoring

2010· article· en· W2075023189 on OpenAlexafffund
Foteini Agrafioti, Francis M. Bui, Dimitrios Hatzinakos

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity and Communication Networks · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsComputer scienceBiometricsAnonymityDependency (UML)Field (mathematics)Computer securityProtocol (science)Mobile deviceMatching (statistics)Feature (linguistics)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work investigates the feasibility of ECG‐based identity management in mobile health monitoring applications. A body area network that operates in conjunction with ECG biometric recognition is explored for mobile monitoring of patients, rescuers, pilots, soldiers, or field agents in general. Among the major challenges of this technology is the stability of the signals over the monitoring duration. Time dependency is responsible for ECG destabilization, which becomes a significant issue for reliable monitoring. We propose a novel framework that addresses this inadequacy, by updating a gallery template when feature matching is compromised. In addition, strategies for tackling privacy issues in medical data management are proposed. A protocol level solution is discussed, to deal with the ethical issues of this technology. An automatic way of aggregating and managing personal information is presented, designated to operate on the basis of anonymity. The experimental performance measured over long‐ECG recordings demonstrates promising results. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecurity and Communication NetworksSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207