MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925147220 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.11775

Atrial Fibrillation Detection Using Deep Features and Convolutional Networks

2019· preprint· en· W2925147220 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ross-Howe, Hamid R. Tizhoosh

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrogramAtrial fibrillationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningConvolutional neural networkCardiac arrhythmiaCardiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation is a cardiac arrhythmia that affects an estimated 33.5 million people globally and is the potential cause of 1 in 3 strokes in people over the age of 60. Detection and diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) is done noninvasively in the clinical environment through the evaluation of electrocardiograms (ECGs). Early research into automated methods for the detection of AFIB in ECG signals focused on traditional bio-medical signal analysis to extract important features for use in statistical classification models. Artificial intelligence models have more recently been used that employ convolutional and/or recurrent network architectures. In this work, significant time and frequency domain characteristics of the ECG signal are extracted by applying the short-time Fourier trans-form and then visually representing the information in a spectrogram. Two different classification approaches were investigated that utilized deep features in the spectrograms construct-ed from ECG segments. The first approach used a pretrained DenseNet model to extract features that were then classified using Support Vector Machines, and the second approach used the spectrograms as direct input into a convolutional network. Both approaches were evaluated against the MIT-BIH AFIB dataset, where the convolutional network approach achieved a classification accuracy of 93.16%. While these results do not surpass established automated atrial fibrillation detection methods, they are promising and warrant further investigation given they did not require any noise prefiltering, hand-crafted features, nor a reliance on beat detection.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207