Accurate and consistent automatic seismocardiogram annotation without concurrent ECG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismocardiography (SCG) is the measurement of vibrations in the sternum caused by the beating of the heart. Precise cardiac mechanical timings that are easily obtained from SCG are critically dependent on accurate identification of fiducial points. So far, SCG annotation has relied on concurrent ECG measurements. An algorithm capable of annotating SCG without the use any other concurrent measurement was designed. We subjected 18 participants to graded lower body negative pressure. We collected ECG and SCG, obtained R peaks from the former, and annotated the latter by hand, using these identified peaks. We also annotated the SCG automatically. We compared the isovolumic moment timings obtained by hand to those obtained using our algorithm. Mean ± confidence interval of the percentage of accurately annotated cardiac cycles were [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] for levels of negative pressure 0, -20, -30, -40, and -50 mmHg. LF/HF ratios, the relative power of low-frequency variations to high-frequency variations in heart beat intervals, obtained from isovolumic moments were also compared to those obtained from R peaks. The mean differences ± confidence interval were [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] for increasing levels of negative pressure. The accuracy and consistency of the algorithm enables the use of SCG as a stand-alone heart monitoring tool in healthy individuals at rest, and could serve as a basis for an eventual application in pathological cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".