MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094289000 · doi:10.1101/2020.10.21.340968

Automated Feature Extraction from Large Cardiac Electrophysiological Data Sets

2020· preprint· en· W3094289000 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John Jurkiewicz, Stacie Kroboth, Viviana Zlochiver, Peter Hinow

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAurora Research Institute
KeywordsElectrophysiologyComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationCardiac electrophysiologyArtificial intelligenceAction (physics)Set (abstract data type)Feature extractionFeature (linguistics)NeuroscienceBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale A new multi-electrode array-based application for the long-term recording of action potentials from electrogenic cells makes possible exciting cardiac electrophysiology studies in health and disease. With hundreds of simultaneous electrode recordings being acquired over a period of days, the main challenge becomes achieving reliable signal identification and quantification. Objective We set out to develop an algorithm capable of automatically extracting regions of high-quality action potentials from terabyte size experimental results and to map the trains of action potentials into a low-dimensional feature space for analysis. Methods and Results Our automatic segmentation algorithm finds regions of acceptable action potentials in large data sets of electrophysiological readings. We use spectral methods and support vector machines to classify our readings and to extract relevant features. We are able to show that action potentials from the same cell site can be recorded over days without detrimental effects to the cell membrane. The variability between measurements 24 h apart is comparable to the natural variability of the features at a single time point. Conclusions Our work contributes towards a non-invasive approach for cardiomyocyte functional maturation, as well as developmental, pathological and pharmacological studies. As the human-derived cardiac model tissue has the genetic makeup of its donor, a powerful tool for individual drug toxicity screening emerges.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207