MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138608061 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5334444

Comparative analysis of three different modalities for characterization of the seismocardiogram

2009· article· en· W2138608061 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsCardiac cycleUsabilityModalitiesFinite element methodComputer scienceHomogeneousSIGNAL (programming language)CardiologyMedicinePhysicsStructural engineeringEngineeringHuman–computer interactionStatistical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce and compare three different modalities to study seismocardiogram (SCG) and its correlation with cardiac events. We used an accelerometer attached to the subject sternum to get a reference measure. Cardiac events were then approximately identified using echocardiography. As an alternative approximation, we used consecutive Cine-MRI images of the heart to capture cardiac movements and compared them with the experimental SCG. We also employed an anatomically accurate, finite element base electromechanical model with geometry built completely from DT-MRI to simulate a portion of the cardiac cycle as observed in the SCG signal. The preliminary results demonstrate the usability of these newly proposed methods to investigate the mechanism of SCG waves and also demonstrate the usability of echocardiograph in interpretation of these results in terms of correlating them to underlying cardiac cycle events.

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.

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 score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207