Methods for analyzing infant heart rate variability: A preliminary study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) reflect autonomic development in infants. To better understand the autonomic response in infants, reliable HRV recordings are vital, yet no protocol exists. The purpose of this paper is to present reliability of a common procedure for analysis from two different file types. In the procedure, continuous electrocardiograph recordings of 5-10 min are obtained at rest in infants at 1 month of age by using a Hexoskin Shirt-Junior's (Carre Technologies Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada). Electrocardiograph (ECG; .wav) and R-R interval (RRi; .csv) files are extracted. The RRi of the ECG signal is generated by VivoSense (Great Lakes NeuroTechnologies, Independence, OH). Two MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA) scripts converted files for analysis with Kubios HRV Premium (Kubios Oy, Kuopio, Finland). A comparison was made between RRi and ECG files for HR and HRV parameters, and then tested with t tests and correlations via SPSS. There are significant differences in root mean squared successive differences between recording types, with only HR and low-frequency measures significantly correlated together. Recording with Hexoskin and analysis with MATLAB and Kubios enable infant HRV analysis. Differences in outcomes exist between procedures, and standard methodology for infant HR analysis is needed.
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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it