MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014169856 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ab87b2

Investigating the estimation of cardiac time intervals using gyrocardiography

2020· article· en· W3014169856 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsComputer scienceEstimationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.153 · 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