MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic recognition of arrhythmia using a CNN-based broad learning system

2020· article· en· W3098618759 on OpenAlexaff
Sheng-shi Li, Yujuan Si, Dunwei Wen, Weiyi Yang, Gong Zhang, Peiyu Zhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Training setMachine learningCardiac arrhythmiaNoise (video)Speech recognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accurate electrocardiogram (ECG) beat classification can benefit the diagnosis of the cardiovascular disease. Currently, automatic ECG classification systems based on deep neural network are useful in the field of ECG recognition. However, most of them are time-consuming in training, less robustness to noise, and need to retrain the entire model when new data are added. To address these problems, we propose an ECG classification algorithm by using a CNN-based broad learning system (CNNBLS) for recognition of arrhythmia. We performed two experiments to evaluate the robustness and incremental learning features of the proposed classification system. In noise robustness experiment, we selected five types of original and denoising abnormal ECGs in the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database, and overall accuracy of the five arrhythmia classifications achieved 98.5% and 98%. In incremental learning experiment, we selected 6 types of abnormal ECGs data in the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database. The accuracy and training time before incremental learning were 97.94% and 21.61 s, and the accuracy and training time after incremental learning with additional 12929 new data were 98.45% and 47.23 s. Experimental results show that our model is a practical ECG recognition method with suitable noise robustness and has superiority in training time while the accuracy is guaranteed.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207