MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174823523 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.00104

CardioGAN: Attentive Generative Adversarial Network with Dual Discriminators for Synthesis of ECG from PPG

2020· article· en· W3174823523 on OpenAlexaff
Pritam Sarkar, Ali Etemad

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWearable computerGenerator (circuit theory)Dual (grammatical number)SmartwatchPattern recognition (psychology)Generative adversarial networkElectrocardiographyComputer visionDeep learningCardiologyMedicinePower (physics)Embedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is the electrical measurement of cardiac activity, whereas Photoplethysmogram (PPG) is the optical measurement of volumetric changes in blood circulation. While both signals are used for heart rate monitoring, from a medical perspective, ECG is more useful as it carries additional cardiac information. Despite many attempts toward incorporating ECG sensing in smartwatches or similar wearable devices for continuous and reliable cardiac monitoring, PPG sensors are the main feasible sensing solution available. In order to tackle this problem, we propose CardioGAN, an adversarial model which takes PPG as input and generates ECG as output. The proposed network utilizes an attention-based generator to learn local salient features, as well as dual discriminators to preserve the integrity of generated data in both time and frequency domains. Our experiments show that the ECG generated by CardioGAN provides more reliable heart rate measurements compared to the original input PPG, reducing the error from 9.74 beats per minute (measured from the PPG) to 2.89 (measured from the generated ECG).

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 score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.110 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207