MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594463825 · doi:10.22489/cinc.2016.325-127

A Novel Approach for Robust Detection of Heart Beats in Multimodal Data using Neural Networks and Boosted Trees

2016· article· en· W2594463825 on OpenAlexaff
Sachin Vernekar, Deepu Vijayasenan, Rohit Ranjan

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in cardiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work describes a novel approach designed for Physionet 2014 Challenge, Robust Detection of Heart Beats in Multimodal Data [5].The objective here is to detect the location of R peaks from QRS complex of an electrocardiogram (ECG) excerpt.Robust detection of heart beats in a noisy ECG signal is an extremely difficult task.To overcome the challenge in such situations, besides ECG, blood pressure (BP) signal is also recorded at the same time; hence the idea here is that, if a segment of one of the signals is noisy, the peaks in that segment can be better estimated by peaks found in the corresponding segment of other signal, if good.The approach uses Machine Learning (ML) methods to identify locations of R-peaks in a given segment of ECG or BP signal.Peaks from both ECG and BP signal are found separately using a novel feature representation and subsequent ML approaches that renders R peaks in the signal, easier to be detected, by a simple windowing technique.Individually detected peaks, from both ECG and BP are further analyzed in chunks of equal short time periods, and the best result of the two is chosen in final peak prediction based on variance comparison techniques.The performance of system on the training dataset [11] provided in the competition is 99.95%.The performance on test datasets which are hidden for phase I, phase II and phase III of the competition respectively are 93.27%,90.28% and 89.74%.The submission resulted in 1 st place in all three phases of the competition.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in cardiologySame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207