MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090472274 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2014.6999159

Identifying hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients by classifying individual heartbeats from 12-lead ECG signals

2014· article· en· W2090472274 on OpenAlexaff
Quazi Abidur Rahman, Larisa G. Tereshchenko, Matthew Kongkatong, Theodore P. Abraham, M. Roselle Abraham, Hagit Shatkay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyHeartbeatArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)ElectrocardiographyRandom forestSupport vector machineComputer scienceMedicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test based on electrocardiograms (ECG) that record the heart electrical activity can help in early detection of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) where the heart muscle is partially thickened and blood flow is (potentially fatally) obstructed. This paper presents a cardiovascular-patient classifier we developed to identify HCM patients using standard 10-seconds, 12-lead ECG signals. Patients are classified as having HCM if the majority of the heartbeats are recognized as HCM. Thus, the classifier's underlying task is to recognize individual heartbeats segmented from 12-lead ECG signals as HCM beats, where heartbeats from non-HCM cardiovascular patients are used as controls. We extracted 504 morphological and temporal features - both commonly used and newly-developed ones - from ECG signals for heartbeat classification. To assess classification performance, we trained and tested a random forest classifier and a support vector machine classifier using 5-fold cross validation. The patient-classification precision and F-measure of both classifiers are close to 0.85. Recall (sensitivity) and specificity are approximately 0.90. We also conducted feature selection experiments by gradually removing the least informative features; the results show that a relatively small subset of 304 highly informative features can achieve performance measures comparable to that achieved by using the complete set of features.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207