MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2754459926 · doi:10.1109/embc.2017.8037528

Intracardiac electrogram envelope detection during atrial fibrillation using fast orthogonal search

2017· article· en· W2754459926 on OpenAlexaff
Javad Hashemi, Mohammad Hassan Shariat, Damian Redfearn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntracardiac injectionRobustness (evolution)Envelope (radar)Atrial fibrillationPattern recognition (psychology)AblationArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionMedicineCardiologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of any intracardiac electrogram processing method is limited by the accuracy of its activation detection approach. The most common activation detection approaches in the literature aim to find the highest peak in the activation envelope disregarding the start and end points. However, the duration of the activation can be used to extract useful information such as wave collisions. In this work, we propose a novel orthogonal based approach for fast and accurate estimation of the start and end of the activations (activation envelope) in intracardiac recordings during atrial fibrillation. Wavelet decomposition of the signals was used to create a pool of basis functions for the proposed modeling method. The database included 24 recordings of approximate length of 6s obtained from atrial endocardium of 5 patients who underwent catheter ablation therapy. The start and end of activations in each electrogram was manually annotated by an expert electrophysiologist and the annotations were used as a gold standard to calculate the performance of our envelope detection method. The results show promising performance and excellent robustness to training data for our proposed method with respect to envelope estimation error.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→