MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2141820517 · doi:10.1109/cic.2003.1291280

Comparison of alarm strategies for continuous 12-lead ST-segment monitoring

2003· article· en· W2141820517 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.Y. Wang, Manuel Cortiñas Sáenz, B. Milan Horáček

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMLead (geology)Sensitivity (control systems)Detection thresholdFalse alarmThreshold limit valueMathematicsComputer scienceMaterials scienceStatisticsReal-time computingChemistryEngineeringGeologyElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several alarm detection strategies for real-time ST-segment monitoring (including detection using any single lead, any two leads, any two contiguous leads, any three leads, and STindex, computed as the sum of the absolute ST values from three quasi-orthogonal leads) have been evaluated using a 12-lead ST database generated from the Dalhousie PTCA database. The database includes 95 patients with a total of 202 balloon occlusions. For all the occluded vessels combined, the detection sensitivity using any single lead for ST-alarm detection decreases from 84.7% to 74.8% when the threshold is increased from 1 mm to 1.5 mm. For alarm detection using any two leads, two contiguous leads, and three leads, the results using a 1-mm threshold are 79.7%, 78.7%, and 77.2%, respectively. The two-lead performance results can be improved to 87.1% for any two leads and to 84.2% for any two contiguous leads if a lower threshold of 0.8 mm is used. For all the possible three-lead combinations, the STindex computed using leads III, V2, and V5 shows the highest correlation to the sum of the absolute ST values from all 12 leads. A detection sensitivity of 85.2% can be obtained using STindex with a threshold of 1.5 mm.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→