MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112992691 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2006.881782

A Granular Description of ECG Signals

2006· article· en· W2112992691 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Gacek, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSignal processingSpeech recognitionEngineeringElectronic engineeringDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop a general framework of a granular representation of ECG signals. The crux of the approach lies in the development and ongoing processing realized in the setting of information granules-fuzzy sets. They serve as basic conceptual and semantically meaningful entities using which we describe signals and build their models (such as various predictive schemes or classifiers). A comprehensive two-phase scheme of the design of the information granules is proposed and described. At the first phase, we discuss the temporal granulation through a series of temporal windows (granular windows) and an aggregation of the values of signal by means of fuzzy sets. To address this issue, offered is a detailed method of building a fuzzy set based on numeric data and a certain optimization criterion that strikes a balance between the highest experimental relevance of the fuzzy set supported by numeric data and its substantial specificity. At the next phase of the granular design, a collection of information granules is further summarized with the use of fuzzy clustering (Fuzzy C-Means). The resulting prototypes (centroids) formed by this grouping process serve as elements of the granular vocabulary. We discuss ways of using these vocabularies in the knowledge-based representation, modeling, and classification of ECG beats.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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