MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516553530 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/37/9/1588

Accurate and consistent automatic seismocardiogram annotation without concurrent ECG

2016· article· en· W2516553530 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFiducial markerConfidence intervalConsistency (knowledge bases)RR intervalQT intervalElectrocardiographyMathematicsAlgorithmBlood pressureMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateComputer scienceStatisticsHeart rate variabilityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.182 · 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