MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157881792 · doi:10.1109/cic.2001.977584

Effect of number of electrodes, electrode displacement, and RMS measurement noise on the localization accuracy of ECG inverse problem

2002· article· en· W2157881792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanna-Greta Puurtinen, Jari Hyttinen, P. Laarne, Noriyuki Takano, Jaakko Malmivuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSuomen Kulttuurirahasto
KeywordsElectrodeTorsoNoise (video)Body surfaceDisplacement (psychology)Inverse problemElectrical conductorConductorInverseAcousticsMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the number of electrodes, electrode displacement and RMS measurement noise was evaluated using an anatomically-detailed computer model of the thorax as a volume conductor. The body surface potential distributions due to cardiac dipole sources were calculated by applying five different electrode montages: the eight electrodes representing the independent leads of the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), a modified 24-lead configuration, a Lux 32-lead full-body configuration, a Montreal 64-lead configuration, and a Brussels 120-lead configuration. Inverse solutions were computed using the lead field concept in the presence of both erroneous locations of the electrodes and of RMS measurement noise added to the torso surface potentials. The results indicate that increasing the number of leads enhances the localization accuracy of the inverse problem. With 32 or more electrodes, the localization accuracy remained stabilized despite the added RMS measurement noise. Similarly, increasing the number of displaced electrodes to 32 improved the localization accuracy as compared to cases with fewer electrodes.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207