MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919020707 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2018.8645143

A Least Squares Approach to Estimation of Far-field Voltage in Unipolar Electrograms in Atrial Fibrillation

2018· article· en· W2919020707 on OpenAlex

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

Venue2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationAblationCardiologyCatheter ablationMedicineIntracardiac injectionInternal medicineField (mathematics)Cardiac AblationBiomedical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of atrial scar using electrogram voltage is emerging as a promising approach to atrial fibrillation catheter ablation. However, unipolar electrograms recorded from intracardiac catheters during AF are corrupted by far-field signals from remote atrial sites and the ventricles, which results in voltage overestimation and scar underdetection. Removal of these far field signals would allow improved assessment of the local unipolar electrogram at the recording site. Most far-field removal methods consider only the ventricular far-field. In AF, the surrounding right and left atrial activity contributes to the far field and its removal has not been previously described. We present a least squares method to remove the far-field from all sources from unipolar electrograms. We tested the method on synthetic data generated from real electrograms from 80 patients undergoing AF catheter ablation. The method performed well, extracting the far-field with high accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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