MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083535555 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2014.6854307

On establishing evaluation standards for ECG biometrics

2014· article· en· W2083535555 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)PopulationField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiogram (ECG) biometrics are becoming increasingly popular. Numerous approaches to ECG processing have been proposed over the past years and the field has drawn significant attention from the biometrics community. However, less attention has been paid to developing a standard for ECG biometric testing for the evaluation of such algorithms. This paper proposes a set of standards for ECG signal recording and presents the UofT ECG Database (UofTDB) in order to evaluate the performance of various ECG biometric methods. Compared to existing databases, the UofTDB has three important characteristics namely, large population size (1012 individuals), varying body postures, physical exercise and acquisition over a long period. A promising equal error rate of under 5% is also reported.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207