Novel Method for Synchronization of Multiple Biosensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronization of signals in the post-trial analysis is a laborious process that is often a bottleneck during the signal analysis. As the concept of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) emerges and more sensors are implemented in a research trial, reliable synchronization schemes are becoming increasingly important. This article presents a synchronization algorithm that could align signals recorded by different platforms with different sampling frequencies to millisecond-level precision. The algorithm could also realign a recording that has been restarted after a device failure with the same alignment precision as the rest of the signals. The algorithm generates a secondary signal by permutation of six different step voltages in each cycle to produce a unique pattern before returning to a baseline. The algorithm has been deployed in an actual clinical trial involving 26 heart failure patients and five different bio-signal modalities. It has successfully aligned all trials, including one trial that had a device failure during the recording. Two aligned heart signals had an average beat-to-beat interval difference of 0.81 ± 0.79 ms or 0.90 ± 0.87% with no sign of a negative effect of the synchronization algorithm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".