Comparison of Different Methods for Estimating Cardiac Timings: A Comprehensive Multimodal Echocardiography Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac time intervals are important hemodynamic indices and provide information about left ventricular performance. Phonocardiography (PCG), impedance cardiography (ICG), and recently, seismocardiography (SCG) have been unobtrusive methods of choice for detection of cardiac time intervals and have potentials to be integrated into wearable devices. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of beat-to-beat extraction of cardiac timings from the PCG, ICG and SCG recordings in comparison to multimodal echocardiography (Doppler, TDI, and M-mode) as the gold clinical standard. Recordings were obtained from 86 healthy adults and in total 2,120 cardiac cycles were analyzed. For estimation of the pre-ejection period (PEP), 43% of ICG annotations fell in the corresponding echocardiography ranges while this was 86% for SCG. For estimation of the total systolic time (TST), these numbers were 43, 80, and 90% for ICG, PCG, and SCG, respectively. In summary, SCG and PCG signals provided an acceptable accuracy and precision in estimating cardiac timings, as compared to ICG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".