MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891444423 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.752

Approaches to big data analysis of interface pressure measurements from continuous pressure imaging technology

2018· article· en· W2891444423 on OpenAlexaff
Mingkai Peng, Wrechelle Ocampo, Danielle A. Southern, Barry Baylis, David T. Hogan, John Conly, Thomas Stelfox, Jaime Kaufman, William A. Ghali, Chester Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Data setFrame (networking)Set (abstract data type)Sampling (signal processing)Similarity (geometry)Computer scienceCorrelation coefficientRepresentation (politics)CorrelationData miningPearson product-moment correlation coefficientStatisticsMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionOver 4.5 TB of data will be collected in a randomized clinical trial assessing continuous pressure imaging technology in reducing pressure injuries. To permit efficient analysis we examined different approaches to generating a reduced representation of the data that still produced similar analytical results to the full data set.
 Objectives and ApproachOur primary objective was to develop an approach for reducing the pressure data to a manageable size, without loss of information. Frame by frame analysis of excluded participant imaging data allows us to identify changes in patient position. We explored different sampling frequencies (q5, 30, 60, 120, \& 240 seconds) for analysis, coalesced frames with periods of stillness, and used correlation coefficients as a measure of similarity between adjacent frames to identify patient position changes. Heat maps and plots were used to evaluate the performance characteristics and usefulness of different sampling frequencies and correlation coefficients to compress the data.
 ResultsA sampling frequency q60 seconds provided reasonable representation of changes in interface pressure over time. This translates to using only 1.7\% of the collected data in our analyses. When the threshold of correlation coefficient was set at 0.99 for coalescing the information based on position changes, then there was a maximum of 80 position changes detected. Therefore, approximately 160 frames q24 hours is sufficient to represent pressure states of participants at high risk of developing pressure injuries. In total we would require 480 frames (160*3) from 72 hours of collected data for our analyses without loss of position changes and pressure information. This represents approximately 0.185\% of the data collected.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsDecreasing the sampling frequency significantly reduced our data size without compromising resolution, while the use of correlation coefficients was effective at coalescing the continuous pressure imaging data. These methods of data reduction may be applicable to pre-processing large datasets obtained from other device monitoring technologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0030.001
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 head0.444
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207