MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887238965 · doi:10.1109/memea.2018.8438664

Detection of Noise Type in Electrocardiogram

2018· article· en· W2887238965 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Abdelazez, Sreeraman Rajan, Adrian D. C. Chan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNoise (video)Random forestArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Random noiseSpeech recognitionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians use electrocardiogram (ECG) to diagnose cardiovascular diseases. It is mainly used in hospital environment; however, with advancements in ambulatory ECG, it is now available outside of hospital environment. Ambulation can lead to contamination of ECG with various noises leading to signal corruption, misdiagnosis, or false alarms. Removal of noise from ECG is possible; however, blindly applying noise removal techniques may reduce the fidelity of the ECG. As such, identification of the noise in the ECG and applying targeted techniques minimize information loss. In this study, a machine learning approach is used to identify the type of noise in ECG. ECG from Physionet's Normal S inus Rhythm Database was contaminated with noise (baseline wandering, electrode motion, and electromyography) from Physionet's MIT-BIH Noise S tress Test Database at different levels and combinations. The chosen machine learning algorithm was Random Forest with 1024 estimators. The Random Forest had a precision and recall of 1.0 when identifying clean ECG. The average precision and recall were 0.47 and 0.63, respectively, for segments with a single type of noise. The average precision and recall were were 0.44 and 0.27, respectively, for segments with multiple types of noise. The drop in precision and recall was due to the misclassification of the ECG with multiple noises as ECG with a single noise; as an example, classification of an ECG with baseline wandering and electromyography as an ECG with baseline wandering. The classifier performed well at identifying any of the noises in segments with multiple types of noises with an average precision and recall of 0.81 and 0.70, respectively. The classifier generally performed well in identifying types of noise in ECG allowing for future work in developing a framework for identification and mitigation of noise.

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.

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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207