MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111717793 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2099228

Extraction and Analysis of $\hbox{T}$ Waves in Electrocardiograms During Atrial Flutter

2011· article· en· W2111717793 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Jacquemet, Bruno‐Pierre Dubé, Réginald Nadeau, A.-Robert LeBlanc, Marcio Sturmer, Giuliano Becker, Teresa Kuś, Alain Vinet

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAtrial flutterFlutterElectrocardiographyP waveCardiologyInternal medicineBeat (acoustics)T waveMedicineAcousticsAtrial fibrillationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of T waves in the ECG is an essential clinical tool for diagnosis, monitoring, and follow-up of patients with heart dysfunction. During atrial flutter, this analysis has been so far limited by the perturbation of flutter waves superimposed over the T wave. This paper presents a method based on missing data interpolation for eliminating flutter waves from the ECG during atrial flutter. To cope with the correlation between atrial and ventricular electrical activations, the CLEAN deconvolution algorithm was applied to reconstruct the spectrum of the atrial component of the ECG from signal segments corresponding to TQ intervals. The locations of these TQ intervals, where the atrial contribution is presumably dominant, were identified iteratively. The algorithm yields the extracted atrial and ventricular contributions to the ECG. Standard T-wave morphology parameters (T-wave amplitude, T peak-T end duration, QT interval) were measured. This technique was validated using synthetic signals, compared to average beat subtraction in a patient with a pacemaker, and tested on pseudo-orthogonal ECGs from patients in atrial flutter. Results demonstrated improvements in accuracy and robustness of T-wave analysis as compared to current clinical practice.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207