Theoretical and experimental comparison of lag-based and time-based exponential moving average models of QT hysteresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the electrocardiogram, adaptation of the QT interval to variations in heart rate is not instantaneous. Quantification of this hysteresis phenomenon relies on mathematical models describing the relation between the RR and QT time series. These models reproduce hysteresis through an effective RR interval computed as a linear combination of the history of past RR intervals. This filter depends on a time constant parameter that may be used as a biomarker. APPROACH: The most common hysteresis model is based on an autoregressive filter with an impulse response that decreases exponentially with the beat number (lag-based model). Recognizing that the QT time series is unevenly spaced, we propose two exponential moving average filters (time-based models) to define the effective RR interval: one with an impulse response that decreases exponentially with time in seconds, and one with a step response that relaxes exponentially with time in seconds. These two filters are neither linear nor time-invariant. Recurrence formulas are derived to enable efficient implementation. MAIN RESULTS: Application to clinical signals recorded during tilt table test, exercise and 24 h Holter demonstrates that the three models perform similarly in terms of goodness-of-fit. When comparing the hysteresis time constant in two conditions with different heart rates, however, the time-based models are shown to reduce the bias on the hysteresis time constant caused by heart rate acceleration and deceleration. SIGNIFICANCE: Time-based models should be considered when intergroup differences in both heart rate and QT hysteresis are expected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".