MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heartbeat detection from the upper arm using an SWT-based zero-phase filter bank incorporated with a voting Scheme

2022· article· en· W4295501514 on OpenAlexaff
Nargess Heydari Beni, Ning Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeartbeatComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)QRS complexFilter bankSensitivity (control systems)Artificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionAlgorithmComputer visionCardiologyEngineeringElectronic engineeringMedicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal provides a graphical representation of cardiac activity and is the most commonly adopted clinical tool for cardiac abnormalities detection. Heartbeat detection, as the first step in analyzing ECG signals, is required for an accurate diagnosis. Stationary wavelet transform (SWT) as a commonly used algorithm for heartbeat detection has a disadvantage of phase shift regarding the original signal. This work addresses this issue by presenting a new method that incorporates an SWT-based zero-phase filter bank with a voting scheme. Our results indicated that a superior performance in heartbeat detection was achieved from the upper arm compared to conventional SWT with a more accurate localization. We achieved sensitivity (SE) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.98±0.04 and 0.95±0.09 with the most distance of 50 ms from the actual heartbeats. The SE and PPV changed to 0.75±0.15 and 0.73±0.16, respectively for the distance of 20 ms. Clinical Relevance- The proposed method can be later implemented in wearable devices for convenient cardiac activity monitoring from upper arm or other none-conventional sites.

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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207