MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949343586

Detection of c, d, and e Waves in the Acceleration Photoplethysmogram

2013· preprint· en· W2949343586 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elgendi

Bibliographic record

VenueviXra · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramThresholdingAccelerationSensitivity (control systems)AmplitudeComputer scienceAlgorithmSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringOpticsWirelessElectronic engineeringImage (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Analyzing acceleration photoplethysmogram (APG) signals measured after exercise is challenging. In this paper, a novel algorithm that can detect a waves and consequently b waves under these conditions is proposed. Accurate a and b wave detection is an important rst step for the assessment of arterial stiness and other cardiovascular parameters. Methods: Nine algorithms based on xed thresholding are compared, and a new algorithm is introduced to improve the detection rate using a testing set of heat stressed APG signals containing a total of 1,540 heart beats. Results: The new a detection algorithm demonstrates the highest overall detection accuracy|99.78% sensitivity, 100% positive predictivity|over signals that suer from 1) non-stationary eects, 2)irregular heartbeats, and 3) low amplitude waves. In addition, the proposed b detection algorithm achieved an overall sensitivity of 99.78% and a positive predictivity of 99.95%. Conclusions: The proposed algorithm presents an advantage for real-time applications by avoiding human intervention in threshold determination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueviXraSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207