MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi-Class Electrogastrogram (EGG) Signal Classification Using Machine Learning Algorithms

2020· article· en· W3156865894 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Mohsin Sarker Raihan, Abdullah Bin Shams, Rahat Bin Preo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrogastrogramSupport vector machineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmStatistical classificationk-nearest neighbors algorithmComputer scienceMachine learningMathematicsStomachBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrogastrogram (EGG) is a simple and non-invasive method in clinical practices for assessing the stomach function by observing the gastric myoelectrical activity extracted using the electrodes placed on the abdominal surface. EGG is a slow wave propagation. Based on the dominant frequency or cycle per minute, there are three types of EGG signals: Normogastria, Bradygastria, and Tachygastria. In this study, we used the Logistic Regression (LG), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and K Nearest Neighbor (KNN) Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to successfully classify two and three types (classes in ML terminology) of EGG signal with high accuracy. Our results show that the SVM algorithm performs best to classify the two and three class signals with an accuracy of 100% and 92.11% respectively, while logistic regression and the KNN algorithms demonstrate similar lower performances. SVM algorithm also achieved a maximum F1 score, precision, and recall value of 100% and 92% for the two and three classes of EGG signal respectively. An Area Under the Curve (AUC) score of 100% and 92% are observed in the two-class and three-class problem respectively in EGG signal classification using the SVM algorithm. Based on our analysis, we can conclude that SVM can be implemented successfully to accurately classify multi-class EGG signals.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207