MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534152516 · doi:10.3390/bioengineering3040026

A Proof-of-Concept Study: Simple and Effective Detection of P and T Waves in Arrhythmic ECG Signals

2016· article· en· W2534152516 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elgendi, Marianna Meo, Derek Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)AlgorithmT waveComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)SIGNAL (programming language)ElectrocardiographySimple (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceCardiologyMedicineElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A robust and numerically-efficient method based on two moving average filters, followed by a dynamic event-related threshold, has been developed to detect P and T waves in electrocardiogram (ECG) signals as a proof-of-concept. Detection of P and T waves is affected by the quality and abnormalities in ECG recordings; the proposed method can detect P and T waves simultaneously through a unique algorithm despite these challenges. The algorithm was tested on arrhythmic ECG signals extracted from the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database with 21,702 beats. These signals typically suffer from: (1) non-stationary effects; (2) low signal-to-noise ratio; (3) premature atrial complexes; (4) premature ventricular complexes; (5) left bundle branch blocks; and (6) right bundle branch blocks. Interestingly, our algorithm obtained a sensitivity of 98.05% and a positive predictivity of 97.11% for P waves, and a sensitivity of 99.86% and a positive predictivity of 99.65% for T waves. These results, combined with the simplicity of the method, demonstrate that an efficient and simple algorithm can suit portable, wearable, and battery-operated ECG devices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioengineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207