MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105768825 · doi:10.1109/cic.1989.130516

Multigroup diagnostic classification using body surface potential maps

2003· article· en· W2105768825 on OpenAlexaff
F. Kornreich, Terrence J. Montague, P. Smets, Pentti M. Rautaharju, M. Kavadias

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear discriminant analysisLeft ventricular hypertrophyNormalization (sociology)Myocardial infarctionQRS complexElectrocardiographyMedicineCardiologyMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceTorsoStatisticsInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multivariate analysis was performed on 120-lead electrocardiographic (ECG) data in order to derive diagnostic criteria for correct classification of 159 normal subjects (N), 103 patients with anterior myocardial infarction (AMI), 130 patients with inferior myocardial infarction (IMI), and 116 patients with pure left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The analysis used instantaneous voltage measurements obtained by sampling the time-normalized P, PR, QRS, and STT waveforms at equal intervals. The durations of these waveforms were measured prior to time normalization. Linear discriminant functions were computed for each possible bigroup comparison, and the six best discriminators of each pairwise comparison were selected for the final multigroup classification model. A total of eight features from five torso sites accounted for the correct assignment of 93% of N, 92% of AMI, 94% of IMI, and 82% of LVH. The misclassification matrix illustrated the relatively high rate of false negatives in LVH (11%). The improvement in classification over the standard 12 lead ECG was highest for LVH (11%) and lowest for N (4%); AMI and IMI rates were improved by 7% and 6%, respectively.>

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207