MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105407309 · doi:10.1109/cic.2003.1291129

Identification of patients at risk for ventricular tachycardia by means of body surface potential maps

2003· article· en· W2105407309 on OpenAlexaff
Raquel Bailón, Salvador Carrión Olmos, B. Milan Horáček, Pablo Laguna

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature extractionLinear discriminant analysisPattern recognition (psychology)QRS complexArtificial intelligenceVentricular tachycardiaClassifier (UML)Curse of dimensionalityMultivariate statisticsElectrocardiographyComputer scienceDiscriminantPopulationMathematicsCardiologyStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we attempted the stratification of patients at risk for VT by means of BSPM recorded during sinus rhythm, based on the evidence that specific arrhythmogenic alterations manifest on body surface potentials. Due to the high dimensionality of BSPM data and the limited number of available patients, a feature extraction step was necessary prior to the classifier design. Feature extraction was performed by means of linear expansions of two different time intervals: QRS and ST-T complexes. Two approaches were studied: the Karhunen-Love transform (KLT) and spatio-temporal expansions. A multivariate linear discriminant analysis was applied to the extracted features to classify the study population in two groups: VT and non-VT. Our results showed that spatio-temporal features (SE = 83%, SP = 86%) obtained similar classification results than KLT features (SE = 78%, SP = 93%) with a lower computational cost. For comparison, a method reported in the literature based on QRST integral maps was implemented, obtaining results within the same range (SE = 88%, SP = 72%).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207