MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885576362 · doi:10.1109/memea.2018.8438696

Detection of Abnormal Heartbeats in Compressed Electrocardiograms

2018· article· en· W2885576362 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Abdelazez, Sreeraman Rajan, Adrian D. C. Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceCompression (physics)Data compressionWaveletCompressed sensingElectrocardiographyWavelet transformAtrial fibrillationSpeech recognitionCardiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is an important measurement for diagnosing heart disease. Transmission of continuous ECG over a wireless network can be taxing; therefore, compressing the ECG can reduce the load on wireless networks. On the other hand, reconstructing the ECG for analysis can be computationally intensive. As such, diagnosing heart diseases from compressed ECG is desired. Abnormal beat detection using machine learning in the compressed domain is proposed. The ECG was compressed using a wavelet-based morphological feature preserving compression algorithm The compression algorithm was applied on 84 ECG records available in Long Term Atrial Fibrillation Database (LTAFDB) achieving an average compression rate of 4.17:1. Abnormal beats in the compressed signals were classified using a Random Forest trained using a randomly under-sampled training set. The achieved true positive rate was 69.5% and the false positive rate was 32.8%. The results indicate that identification of abnormal beats in compressed ECGs is possible. Future work will explore detection of abnormal beats in compressively sensed ECG.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207