MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090870848 · doi:10.1109/tim.2020.3027930

Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in Compressively Sensed Electrocardiogram Measurements

2020· article· en· W3090870848 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Abdelazez, Sreeraman Rajan, Adrian D. C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUncompressed videoDetectorHilbert–Huang transformWavelet transformComputer scienceData compressionCompressed sensingDiscrete cosine transformArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)WaveletComputer visionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious cardiovascular condition that can lead to complications, including but not limited to stroke, heart attack, and death. AF can be diagnosed using an electrocardiogram (ECG); however, continuous monitoring produces a large amount of data that can increase storage, power, and transmission bandwidth requirements. Compressive sensing has been used to mitigate increased requirements of continuous monitoring. An AF detector using a deterministic compressively sensed ECG is proposed. By detecting AF in the compressed domain, the computationally expensive process of reconstructing the ECG can be avoided. The detector was based on a random forest trained on features extracted using the wavelet transform, empirical mode decomposition, discrete cosine transform, and statistical methods. ECG data from the long-term AF Database available on PhysioNet were used. The performances of the detectors trained using features from compressed and uncompressed ECG were compared. Using the trained detector, the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and the weighted average precision (AP) were both 0.93 for uncompressed data using record-based tenfold cross validation. The AUC and AP were 0.91 and 0.90 at 50% compression, 0.92 and 0.91 at 75% compression, and 0.82 and 0.91 at 95% compression, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207