Nontraditional Electrocardiogram and Algorithms for Inconspicuous In-Home Monitoring: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Wearable and connected in-home medical devices are typically utilized in uncontrolled environments and often measure physiologic signals at suboptimal locations. Motion artifacts and reduced signal-to-noise ratio, compared with clinical grade equipment, results in a highly variable signal quality that can change significantly from moment to moment. The use of signal quality classification algorithms and robust feature delineation algorithms designed to achieve high accuracy on poor quality physiologic signals can prove beneficial in addressing concerns associated with measurement accuracy, confidence, and clinical validity. Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the successful extraction of clinical grade measures using a custom signal quality classification algorithm for the rejection of poor-quality regions and a robust QRS delineation algorithm from a nonstandard electrocardiogram (ECG) integrated into a toilet seat; a device plagued by many of the same challenges as wearable technologies and other Internet of Things–based medical devices. Methods: The present algorithms were validated using a study of 25 normative subjects and 29 heart failure (HF) subjects. Measurements captured from a toilet seat-based buttocks electrocardiogram were compared with a simultaneously captured 12-lead clinical grade ECG. The ECG lead with the highest morphological correlation to buttocks electrocardiogram was used to determine the accuracy of the heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV), which used the standard deviation of the normal-to-normal (SDNN) intervals between sinus beats, QRS duration, and the corrected QT interval (QTc). These algorithms were benchmarked using the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database (MITDB) and European ST-T Database (EDB), which are standardized databases commonly used to test QRS detection algorithms. Results: Clinical grade accuracy was achieved for all buttocks electrocardiogram measures compared with standard Lead II. For the normative cohort, the mean was −0.0 (SD 0.3) bpm (N=141 recordings) for HR accuracy and −1.0 (SD 3.4) ms for HRV (N=135). The QRS duration and the QTc interval had an accuracy of −0.5 (SD 6.6) ms (N=85) and 14.5 (SD 11.1) ms (N=85), respectively. In the HF cohort, the accuracy for HR, HRV, QRS duration, and QTc interval was 0.0 (SD 0.3) bpm (N=109), −6.6 (SD 13.2) ms (N=99), 2.9 (SD 11.5) ms (N=59), and 11.2 (SD 19.1) ms (N=58), respectively. When tested on MITDB and EDB, the algorithms presented herein had an overall sensitivity and positive predictive value of over 99.82% (N=900,059 total beats), which is comparable to best in-class algorithms tuned specifically for use with these databases. Conclusions: The present algorithmic approach to data analysis of noisy physiologic data was successfully demonstrated using a toilet seat-based ECG remote monitoring system. This approach to the analysis of physiologic data captured from wearable and connected devices has future potential to enable new types of monitoring devices, providing new insights through daily, inconspicuous in-home monitoring.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".