The selection of an optimal segmentation region in physiological signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physiological signals are often corrupted by noisy sources. Usually, artificial intelligence algorithms analyze the whole signal, regardless of its varying quality. Instead, experienced cardiologists search for a high‐quality signal segment, where more accurate conclusions can be draw. We propose a methodology that simultaneously selects the optimal processing region of a physiological signal and determines its decoding into a state sequence of physiologically meaningful events. Our approach comprises two phases. First, the training of a neural network that then enables the estimation of the state probability distribution of a signal sample. Second, the use of the neural network output within an integer program. The latter models the problem of finding a time window by maximizing a likelihood function defined by the user. Our method was tested and validated in two types of signals, the phonocardiogram and the electrocardiogram. In phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram segmentation tasks, the system's sensitivity increased on average from 95.1% to 97.5% and from 78.9% to 83.8%, respectively, when compared to standard approaches found in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".