MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198618123 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14651559.v1

Blind Source Separation in the Analysis of Electrocardiogram Pre-Shock Waveforms During Ventricular Fibrillation

2021· preprint· en· W3198618123 on OpenAlexaff
Marzieh Rasooli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular fibrillationShock (circulatory)Blind signal separationWaveformCardiologyComputer scienceFibrillationInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)Channel (broadcasting)Atrial fibrillationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is a lethal cardiac arrhythmia and electric shock is the only available treatment option for it. Existing works focus on predicting shock success to help improve cardiac resuscitation outcomes. It is desirable to extract information from the electrograms that relates to the current theories on VF mechanism and associate them to the prediction of shock outcomes. To this effect this study used a unique human VF database to evaluate the independent sources (ISs) extracted from Blind Source Separation approach (BSS) and a correlation of 88% was observed between the dominant ISs extracted using a single lead ECG with the number of rotors (i.e., sources identified using multi-channel spatio-temporal phase maps) supporting the hypothesis that the ISs are associated with the rotors. In predicting the shock outcomes using features extracted from the ISs for the given database, we achieved a classification accuracy of 68%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207