MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133427155 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1997.754467

Frequency analysis of the signal-averaged ECG of postinfarction patients for prediction of cardiac death

2002· article· en· W2133427155 on OpenAlexaff
G. Sierra, P.C.H. Morel, P. Le Guyader, F. Trellez, Réginald Nadeau, P. Savard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignal-averaged electrocardiogramQRS complexFast Fourier transformInternal medicineCardiologyFrequency domainMathematicsStatisticsElectrocardiographyMedicineAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequency domain analyses based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), Wavelet decomposition (WD) and Power law scaling (PLS) were performed on the signal-averaged ECG (SAECG) of 2461 postinfarction patients for the purpose of predicting cardiac death (CD) and compared to time domain (TD) analysis. During follow-up (2 years), 158 patients had CD. FFT was used to estimate the power area ratio from (20 to 50 Hz)/(0 to 20 Hz) and from (40 to 100 Hz)/(0 to 40 Hz). The relative energy (RE) of the SAECG was calculated in seven frequency bands ranging from 0 to 250 Hz using WD. PLS slope was estimated from the spectral log-log plot. Multivariate analysis (Cox) showed QRS duration as the best time domain parameter (risk=3.2, p<0.0005) with RE below 3.9 Hz (risk=2.2, p<0.0006) and RE from 7.8 to 15.6 Hz (risk=2.3, p<0.0006) as independent and significant predictors of CD. FFT and PLS parameters were excluded from the model. WD parameters of the SAECG used for predicting of CD after MI allowed a significant discrimination between CD patients and survivors. The statistical results obtained with the WD parameters were comparable with those obtained by TD parameters.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207