MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535940264 · doi:10.1109/bcc.2006.4341628

ECG Biometric Recognition Without Fiducial Detection

2006· article· en· W2535940264 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, Dimitrios Hatzinakos, Jimmy K. M. Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsFiducial markerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHeartbeatDiscrete cosine transformPattern recognition (psychology)WaveformAutocorrelationFalse positive rateComputer visionMathematicsComputer securityImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security concerns increase as the technology for falsification advances. There are strong evidences that a difficult to falsify biometric, the human heartbeat, can be used for identity recognition. Existing approaches address the problem by using electrocardiogram (ECG) data and the fiducials of the different parts of the heartrate. However, the current fiducial detection tools are inadequate for this application since the boundaries of waveforms are difficult to detect, locate and define. In this paper, an ECG biometric recognition method that does not require any waveform detections is introduced based on classification of coefficients from the discrete cosine transform (DCT) of the Autocorrelation (AC) sequence of ECG data segments. Low false negative rates, low false positive rates and a 100% subject recognition rate for healthy subjects can be achieved for parameters that are suitable for the database.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations245
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207