MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ECG Dry-electrode 3D Printing and Signal Quality Considerations

2021· article· en· W4200047863 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelrahman Abdou, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)ElectrodeKurtosisQRS complexComputer scienceNoise (video)Biomedical engineeringSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Quality (philosophy)Electrical conductorMaterials scienceArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsMedicineEngineeringMathematicsCardiologyStatisticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single-lead electrocardiographic (ECG) sensor with 3D printed dry electrodes is developed and tested for short-term wireless ECG monitoring. In a first of its kind approach, a 3D printer and available cost-effective conductive plastics are used to manufacture dry electrodes that can detect an ECG when placed on the chest. The electrodes could be produced in less than 10 minutes and with minimal material resources. To demonstrate the utility of the newly developed sensor, 30-second, 1 and 5-minute recordings are captured and statistically analyzed using established Signal Quality Indices (SQIs) for consumer and medical-grade ECG applications. Heart rate (HR) algorithmic considerations for dry electrode ECG is also explored. The performance of the proposed dry electrode ECG is reliable for HR estimations similar to wet-electrode ECG measurements. The obtained ECG signals demonstrated acceptable quality with Signal to Noise Ratios (SNRs) ranging around 13 dB and Kurtosis Signal Quality Index (kSQI) from approximately 18 to 21. Also, visually, the QRS complexes and T-wave features of an ECG were easily identifiable. These dry electrodes are feasible low-cost rapid manufacturing solutions for single-lead ECG monitoring that takes into consideration the added benefit of better patient comfortability, good quality ECG content and minimum cost for electrode development.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207