MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545221125 · doi:10.2196/biomedeng.6401

A Six-Step Framework on Biomedical Signal Analysis for Tackling Noncommunicable Diseases: Current and Future Perspectives

2016· article· en· W2545221125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Elgendi, Newton Howard, Nigel H. Lovell, Andrzej Cichocki, Matt Brearley, Derek Abbott, Ian Adatia

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthScope (computer science)Health careComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)The InternetRobustness (evolution)Data scienceKnowledge managementProcess managementMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to face major challenges in providing high-quality and universally accessible health care. Researchers, policy makers, donors, and program implementers consistently strive to develop and provide innovative approaches to eliminate geographical and financial barriers to health care access. Recently, interest has increased in using mobile health (mHealth) as a potential solution to overcome barriers to improving health care in LMICs. Moreover, with use increasing and cost decreasing for mobile phones and Internet, mHealth solutions are becoming considerably more promising and efficient. As part of mHealth solutions, biomedical signals collection and processing may play a major role in improving global health care. Information extracted from biomedical signals might increase diagnostic precision while augmenting the robustness of health care workers’ clinical decision making. This paper presents a high-level framework using biomedical signal processing (BSP) for tackling diagnosis of noncommunicable diseases, especially in LMICs. Researchers can consider each of these elements during the research and design of BSP-based devices, enabling them to elevate their work to a level that extends beyond the scope of a particular application and use. This paper includes technical examples to emphasize the applicability of the proposed framework, which is relevant to a wide variety of stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, clinicians, computer scientists, and engineers.

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)0.009
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Biomedical EngineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207