Investigating the estimation of cardiac time intervals using gyrocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of cardiac time intervals (CTIs) is essential for monitoring cardiac performance. Recently, gyrocardiography (GCG) has been introduced as a non-invasive technology for cardiac monitoring. GCG measures the chest's angular precordial vibrations caused by myocardium wall motion using a gyroscope sensor attached to the sternum. In this study, we investigated the accuracy and reproducibility of estimating CTIs from the GCG recordings of 50 adults. APPROACH: We proposed five fiducial points for the GCG waveforms associated with the opening and closure of aortic and mitral valves. Two annotators annotated the suggested points on each cardiac cycle. The points were compared to the corresponding opening and closing of cardiac valves delineated on Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) recordings. The fiducial points were annotated on seismocardiography (SCG) and impedance cardiography (ICG) signals recorded simultaneously. MAIN RESULTS: For estimating the timing of mitral valve closure, aortic valve opening, aortic valve closure, and mitral valve opening, 40%, 67%, 75%, and 70% of GCG annotations fell in the corresponding echocardiography ranges, respectively. The results showed moderate-to-excellent (r = 0.4-0.92; p-value < 0.01) correlation between the measured and the reference CTls. A myocardial performance index (Tei index) adapted using joint GCG and SCG resulted in a moderate correlation (r = 0.4; p-value < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE: The findings showed that the CTIs can be easily measured using GCG. Also, we found that using SCG and GCG recordings together could provide an opportunity to estimate CTIs more accurately, and make it possible to calculate the Tei index as an indicator of myocardial performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".