MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128725371 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2010.5488205

Heart rate reliability for the Smart Rollator

2010· article· en· W2128725371 on OpenAlexaff
Ji Gang, Adrian D. C. Chan, A. Çuhadar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Artifact (error)Computer scienceWavelet transformWaveletNoise (video)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an algorithm to quantify the reliability of heart rates estimated from electrocardiogram (ECG) data. Long-term ECG monitoring is becoming more prevalent with an increasing number of ambulatory monitors, including the Smart Rollator which is a rollator equipped with a series of minimally obtrusive sensors. The ECG reliability index enables the automatic pre-processing of data, to highlight or discard data that are corrupted by noise or other artifacts. Three reliability indices are proposed that are based on the assumption of a short-term invariant PQRST waveform. These indices use distance measures to quantify the reliability of the ECG, which are: 1) percent residual difference, 2) cross-correlation coefficient, and 3) a wavelet distance measure. The reliability indices are evaluated using real ECG data corrupted with three types of noise: 1) baseline wander, 2) electromyogram artifacts, and 3) motion artifact. All three reliability indices demonstrate an ability to track the accuracy of heart rate estimates derived from the ECG. Among the three indices investigated in this work, the wavelet distance measure provides the best performance.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207