MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118015621 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2020.610956

Impact of Data Transformation: An ECG Heartbeat Classification Approach

2020· article· en· W3118015621 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongbo Liang, A. Hussain, Derek Abbott, Carlo Menon, Rabab Ward, Mohamed Elgendi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersQatar National Research FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsHeartbeatTransformation (genetics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceFeature (linguistics)SIGNAL (programming language)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular diseases continue to be a significant global health threat. The electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is a physiological signal that plays a major role in preventing severe and even fatal heart diseases. The purpose of this research is to explore a simple mathematical feature transformation that could be applied to ECG signal segments in order to improve the detection accuracy of heartbeats, which could facilitate automated heart disease diagnosis. Six different mathematical transformation methods were examined and analyzed using 10s-length ECG segments, which showed that a reciprocal transformation results in consistently better classification performance for normal vs. atrial fibrillation beats and normal vs. atrial premature beats, when compared to untransformed features. The second best data transformation in terms of heartbeat detection accuracy was the cubic transformation. Results showed that applying the logarithmic transformation, which is considered the go-to data transformation, was not optimal among the six data transformations. Using the optimal data transformation, the reciprocal, can lead to a 35.6% accuracy improvement. According to the overall comparison tested by different feature engineering methods, classifiers, and different dataset sizes, performance improvement also reached 4.7%. Therefore, adding a simple data transformation step, such as the reciprocal or cubic, to the extracted features can improve current automated heartbeat classification in a timely manner.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207