MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive R-Peak Detector in Extreme Noise Using EMD Selective Analyzer

2022· article· en· W4292862522 on OpenAlexaff
Huthaifa N. Abderahman, Hilmi R. Dajani, Voicu Z. Groza

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformNoise (video)QRS complexComputer scienceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)SIGNAL (programming language)Spectrum analyzerDetectorPattern recognition (psychology)Noise measurementArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmNoise reductionMathematicsStatisticsEnergy (signal processing)TelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately detecting R-peaks in electrocardiogram (ECG) signals is important in various health monitoring applications, such as cuffless blood pressure measurements. In some cases, such as with single-arm ECG measurement, the signal may be buried in large amounts of noise. Moreover, many of the current existing ECG monitors pause the reading until the noise conditions are better, which may lead to a large loss in data. In this work, an adaptive approach is introduced, based on Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), to accurately detect the R-peaks in an extremely noisy ECG signal obtained using a single-arm measurement. The proposed algorithm starts by examining the Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs) extracted from the recorded signal, using the Hausdorff Distance (HD) as a selection tool, before applying the peak detection algorithm. Experimental measurements used to evaluate the algorithm were obtained from 10 healthy subjects for a total of 30 noisy ECG records, containing close to 2000 QRS complexes in total, the majority of which were at an estimated S/N (Signal-to-noise ratio) below −10 dB. The obtained results show a promising technique for detecting R-peaks in extreme noise with a low percentage of detection error ratio and an average percentage error in R-R interval estimation of 6.8%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA)Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207