MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548967474 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726764

Modified maximum time difference intracardiac conduction velocity estimation

2016· article· en· W2548967474 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hassan Shariat, Saeed Gazor, Damian Redfearn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracardiac injectionWavefrontMathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)PhysicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceCardiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cardiac conduction velocity vector (VV) at a desired point in any chamber of the heart can be estimated by processing the local intracardiac electrograms, i.e., the activation times (ATs) and the locations of the recording catheter's electrodes can be used for the VV estimation. In this paper, we modify the maximum time difference (MTD) method, which is a simple computational efficient cardiac VV estimation approach. In the MTD, first, the ATs of the electrograms are extracted, and the corresponding wavefronts are estimated. For each wavefront, the VV is estimated as the vector connecting the first to the last activated electrodes of the catheter divided by the time duration between the activation of those two electrodes. In the proposed modified MTD (MMTD) approach, which is slightly more computationally complex than the MTD, we divide the ATs of each considered wavefront into two groups, such that one group contains the electrodes with early activations, and the other contains those with late activations. We properly assign a time value and a location value to these groups and follow the same procedure as the MTD method to estimate the VV using the assigned values. Using synthetic data, we show that the proposed MMTD improves the quality of the cardiac conduction VV estimation of the MTD method, i.e., the MMTD is more robust to the AT estimation error and is able to determine the VV of the planar wavefronts more accurately.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207