MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386074625 · doi:10.11159/icbes23.152

Multimodal Arrhythmia Classification Using Deep Neural Networks

2023· article· en· W4386074625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ioana Crețu, Alexander Tindale, Maysam Abbod, Ashraf W. Khir, Wamadeva Balachandran, Hongying Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceDeep neural networksDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arrhythmias are deviations from the normal heart rhythm with impact on the cardiovascular health. Their prompt detection plays an important role in mitigating potential negative outcomes, particularly in patients in the intensive care units (ICU). The detection of arrhythmias has mainly been focused on electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. However, ICU patient mobility frequently leads to disconnection of certain ECG leads, potentially compromising the accurate arrhythmia detection. Arterial line blood pressure (ABP) and central venous pressure (CVP) signals are routinely monitored in ICU patients. Changes in the ABP and CVP suggest alterations in the haemodynamic status and cardiac function of the patients. Thus, leveraging these signals for arrhythmia detection, either independently or in conjunction with ECG data, present a viable approach to ensure that even in scenarios where ECG signals are unavailable, alarm systems alerting healthcare providers of arrhythmias remain functional. In this paper, we employ a hybrid model using long-short term memory networks (LSTM) and convolutional neural network (CNN), along with different residual CNN (ResNet) models for multimodal arrhythmia classification. When using all three channels, ResNet50 achieved the best accuracy of 99.58% on five different arrhythmia classes. The significant efficiency of utilizing ABP and CVP signals independently for the classification of arrhythmias, was also highlighted. ResNet50 was trained with ABP and CVP signals independently and correctly identified arrhythmias with an accuracy of 98.79% and 96.67%, respectively. Moreover, the same ResNet50 model was trained on the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database, achieving an accuracy, sensitivity, and precision of 98.78%, 98.77% and 98.80%, which demonstrates the scalability of the proposed model.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and ScienceSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207