MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913514091 · doi:10.22489/cinc.2018.374

Effect of Segmentation Variation on ECG Imaging

2018· article· en· W2913514091 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jess Tate, Néjib Zemzemi, Wilson Good, Peter van Dam, Dana H. Brooks, Rob MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthDalhousie University
KeywordsTorsoSegmentationSurface (topology)Body surfaceMedicineCardiologyBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceAnatomyComputer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ECG imaging (ECGI) is the process of calculating electrical cardiac activity from body surface recordings from the geometry and conductivity of the torso volume. A key first step to create geometric models for ECGI and a possible source of considerable variability is to segment the surface of the heart. We hypothesize that this variation in cardiac segmentation will produce variation in the computed ventricular surface potentials from ECGI. To evaluate this hypothesis, we leveraged the resources of the Consortium for ECG Imaging (CEI) to carry out a comparison of ECGI results from the same body surface potentials and multiple ventricular segmentations. We found that using the different segmentations produced variability in the computed ventricular surface potentials. Not surprisingly, locations of greater variance in the computed potential correlated to locations of greater variance in the segmentations, for example near the pulmonary artery and basal anterior left ventricular wall. Our results indicate that ECGI may be more sensitive to segmentation errors on the anterior epicardial surface than on other areas of the heart.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in cardiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207