MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Toolkit for Motion Artifact Signal Generation

2022· article· en· W4292873517 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Kulpa, Emma Farago, Adrian D. C. Chan

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtifact (error)Computer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Artificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Artificial neural networkAutoregressive modelComputer visionHidden Markov modelPattern recognition (psychology)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the research and development stages of biomedical signal quality analysis tools, testing and validation help to ensure they work as intended and are robust enough to be used in all sorts of environments. Large datasets of biomedical signals (e.g., electrocardiogram, electromyogram) and signal contaminants (e.g., motion artifact, power line interference) are required for rigorous testing; however, obtaining a large, diverse database of real-life signals and contaminants is a challenging process. By accurately simulating signals and contaminants, researchers are able to more easily create large amounts of data, with known levels of contamination, which can be used for testing and validation of signal quality analysis tools. The Motion Artifact Signal Generation Toolkit allows for the synthesis of motion artifacts using one of three models: 1) autoregressive, 2) Markov chain, and 3) recurrent neural network. Each of these has been prepared for three use-cases: 1) pre-simulated motion artifacts, 2) pre-trained models that can be used to simulate motion artifacts, and 3) training a model using a motion artifact sample and using that model to simulate motion artifacts. The three model types were tested on nonstationary data, exposing some current limitations; specifically, the models' ability to model real-world, non-cyclical data. The recurrent neural network does appears to produce reasonable simulated motion artifact that exhibit similarities, in both the time and frequency domains, to short time segments of real-world motion artifact.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.026

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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