A recognition method for extreme bradycardia by arterial blood pressure signal modeling with curve fitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the potential of arterial blood pressure (ABP) signal for the detection of the subjects with life-threatening extreme bradycardia (EBr). APPROACH: The steps of the proposed method include ABP signal preprocessing, ABP wave segmentation, model parameter estimation, and EBr subject detection. First, the noise, interference and abnormal segments are eliminated in the pre-processing. Then, the ABP signal is segmented into a series of ABP waves by cardiac cycles. The pulse decomposition analysis (PDA) approach is presented to quantitively describe the changes in ABP waves. The back-propagation neural network, probabilistic neural network and decision tree (DT) are engaged to design the classifiers to discriminate the EBr subjects from healthy subjects by the parameters of PDA models. The international physiological signal databases of Fantasia for healthy subjects and 2015 PhysioNet/CinC Challenge for EBr subjects are exploited to validate the proposed method, and 79 310 ABP waves of healthy subjects and 4595 ABP waves of EBr subjects are extracted. MAIN RESULTS: We obtain the average PDA models of healthy subjects and EBr subjects and derive their changes. The two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test result shows that all model parameters are markedly different (H= 1, P < 0.05) between the healthy and EBr subjects. The classification results show that the DT has the best performance with specificity of 99.74% ± 0.07%, sensitivity of 93.12% ± 1.24%, accuracy of 99.37% ± 0.10% and kappa coefficient of 93.92% ± 0.92%. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed method has the potential to detect EBr subjects by the ABP signal.
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".