Assessing Electrocardiogram and Respiratory Signal Quality of a Wearable Device (SensEcho): Semisupervised Machine Learning-Based Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the development and promotion of wearable devices and their mobile health (mHealth) apps, physiological signals have become a research hotspot. However, noise is complex in signals obtained from daily lives, making it difficult to analyze the signals automatically and resulting in a high false alarm rate. At present, screening out the high-quality segments of the signals from huge-volume data with few labels remains a problem. Signal quality assessment (SQA) is essential and is able to advance the valuable information mining of signals. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to design an SQA algorithm based on the unsupervised isolation forest model to classify the signal quality into 3 grades: good, acceptable, and unacceptable; validate the algorithm on labeled data sets; and apply the algorithm on real-world data to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: Data used in this study were collected by a wearable device (SensEcho) from healthy individuals and patients. The observation windows for electrocardiogram (ECG) and respiratory signals were 10 and 30 seconds, respectively. In the experimental procedure, the unlabeled training set was used to train the models. The validation and test sets were labeled according to preset criteria and used to evaluate the classification performance quantitatively. The validation set consisted of 3460 and 2086 windows of ECG and respiratory signals, respectively, whereas the test set was made up of 4686 and 3341 windows of signals, respectively. The algorithm was also compared with self-organizing maps (SOMs) and 4 classic supervised models (logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting). One case validation was illustrated to show the application effect. The algorithm was then applied to 1144 cases of ECG signals collected from patients and the detected arrhythmia false alarms were calculated. RESULTS: The quantitative results showed that the ECG SQA model achieved 94.97% and 95.58% accuracy on the validation and test sets, respectively, whereas the respiratory SQA model achieved 81.06% and 86.20% accuracy on the validation and test sets, respectively. The algorithm was superior to SOM and achieved moderate performance when compared with the supervised models. The example case showed that the algorithm was able to correctly classify the signal quality even when there were complex pathological changes in the signals. The algorithm application results indicated that some specific types of arrhythmia false alarms such as tachycardia, atrial premature beat, and ventricular premature beat could be significantly reduced with the help of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: This study verified the feasibility of applying the anomaly detection unsupervised model to SQA. The application scenarios include reducing the false alarm rate of the device and selecting signal segments that can be used for further research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".