MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990357281 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2955738

Inter-Patient CNN-LSTM for QRS Complex Detection in Noisy ECG Signals

2019· article· en· W2990357281 on OpenAlexafffund
Brosnan Yuen, Xiaodai Dong, Tao Lű

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNvidia
KeywordsComputer scienceQRS complexArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionCardiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a convolutional neural network (CNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM) is designed to detect QRS complexes in noisy electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. The CNN performs feature extraction while the LSTM determines the QRS complex timings. A multi-layer perception (MLP) after the LSTM is added to format the QRS complex detection predictions. With a unique data preparation procedure that includes proper design of training dataset, the proposed CNN-LSTM can achieve superior inter-patient testing performance, which means the testing and training datasets do not share any same patient ECG records. This generalization ability characteristic is critical to automated ECG analysis in an age of big data collected from noisy wearable ECG devices. The MIT-BIH and the European ST-T noise stress test databases are used to validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in terms of sensitivity (recall), positive predictive value (precision), F1 score and timing root mean square error of R peak positions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207