MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287392316 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.03423

DeepFilter: an ECG baseline wander removal filter using deep learning\n techniques

2021· preprint· en· W4287392316 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Romero, David Castro Piñol, Carlos Román Vázquez Seisdedos

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Noise (video)Computer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)AmbulatoryNoise reductionBaseline (sea)Cosine similarityCode (set theory)Mean squared errorSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMedicineStatisticsMathematicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the World Health Organization, around 36% of the annual deaths\nare associated with cardiovascular diseases and 90% of heart attacks are\npreventable. Electrocardiogram signal analysis in ambulatory\nelectrocardiography, during an exercise stress test, and in resting conditions\nallows cardiovascular disease diagnosis. However, during the acquisition, there\nis a variety of noises that may damage the signal quality thereby compromising\ntheir diagnostic potential. The baseline wander is one of the most undesirable\nnoises. In this work, we propose a novel algorithm for BLW noise filtering\nusing deep learning techniques. The model performance was validated using the\nQT Database and the MIT-BIH Noise Stress Test Database from Physionet. In\naddition, several comparative experiments were performed against\nstate-of-the-art methods using traditional filtering procedures as well as deep\nlearning techniques. The proposed approach yields the best results on four\nsimilarity metrics: the sum of squared distance, maximum absolute square,\npercentage of root distance, and cosine similarity with 4.29 (6.35) au, 0.34\n(0.25) au, 45.35 (29.69) au and, 91.46 (8.61) au, respectively. The source code\nof this work, containing our method and related implementations, is freely\navailable on Github.\n

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.145 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207