MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166663370 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1556947

Hardware-assisted lossless ECG coder

2006· article· en· W2166663370 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Ottley, R.J. Bolton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLossless compressionEntropy encodingLossy compressionComputer hardwareGolomb codingData compressionField-programmable gate arrayLossless JPEGHuffman codingReal-time computingAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceImage compression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an implementation of a lossless digital waveform coder as a soft-core CPU custom instruction for use in portable electrocardiogram (ECG) recording systems. Holter monitors are portable ECG recorders that are designed to be worn by the patient for a typical period of 24/spl sim/48 hours. Such systems can generate large quantities of data, necessitating some form of coding to reduce the size of the stored data. Traditionally, ECG coding methods employ lossy approaches. While such methods can attain better compression than a lossless method, the reduction in signal fidelity may obscure important details in the signal. The coding algorithm implemented consists of a linear decorrelator selected from analysis of a block of samples, followed by entropy coding of the residual using Golomb-Rice codes. The implementation is designed as a custom instruction for the Altera Nios CPU, and when tested on signals from real ECG libraries, performed approximately seven times faster than a software implementation written in C and running on the same CPU.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207