MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386257040 · doi:10.32920/24050742.v1

Cardiac Arrhythmia Classification Using Wavelet Analysis of Electrocardiograms

2023· preprint· en· W4386257040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nripendra Malhotra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineCardiologyVentricular fibrillationVentricular tachycardiaAtrial fibrillationMedicineWaveletCardiac arrhythmiaSudden cardiac deathArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Cardiac Arrhythmias are heart rhythm abnormalities that seriously impact the quality of life and can be lethal. Four major types of cardiac arrhythmia that originate from atria and ventricles are atrial flutter (AFL), atrial fibrillation (AF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and ventricular fibrillation (VF). Annually about 50,000 embolic strokes mostly due to AF and 35,000 sudden cardiac deaths mostly due to VF are reported in Canada. Accurate detection and segregation of these arrhythmia swiftly is an essential requirement for appropriate treatment. Automating this process is especially critical and valuable for implantable devices and long-term monitoring scenarios. </p> <p>In this thesis, with the above motivation, we analyzed the electrocardiograms (ECGs) recorded during these 4 types of arrhythmia using wavelet transform. A total of 100 ECG segments con- taining 25 ECG segments each for AF, AFL, VT and VF, obtained from well-known open source databases were used in this study. Discriminative features were extracted from the wavelet coefficients and fed to a linear discriminant analysis based classifier. Based on the proposed scheme, best classification accuracies using library wavelets and adaptive continuous wavelets (ACW) are as follows: (i) for four group classification, Paul CW and A-pattern ACW attained <strong>77% </strong>and <strong>81% </strong>respectively, (ii) for the two group classification of AA, Paul CW and M-pattern ACW attained <strong>76% </strong>and <strong>86% </strong>respectively, (iii) for the two group classification of VA, Bump CW and M-pattern ACW attained <strong>92% </strong>and <strong>94% </strong>respectively. </p>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207