MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395109573 · doi:10.18280/ria.380238

Processing Biomedical Signals by Neural Networks Using Hardware-Constrained System

2024· article· en· W4395109573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maytham N. Meqdad, Reyam Thair Ahmed, Mustafa AL-Handhal

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSensor Technology and Measurement Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkComputer hardwareNeural systemArtificial intelligenceComputer architectureEmbedded systemNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On-line detection of arrhythmia in 12-lead electrocardiogram signals by deep learning models is essential for clinical care.If an 8-byte floating point data type is used to define each sample in a 12-lead ECG signal, the volume of a Rosent-18 class is 800.4MB (100.06M * 8 B).This model is challenging to apply to devices with minimal hardware.Consequently, these models are inadequate for practical purposes, and their utilization is restricted when it comes to low-capacity devices within emerging fields like the Internet of Medical Things.This article introduces a technique that aims to categorize irregularities in 12-lead electrocardiogram signals on edge devices.The method utilizes a lightweight learning approach for the classification of arrhythmias.The evident originality of this work is the use of different evaluations to deploy the suggested model on a device with hardware limitations.After employing the Tensor Flow Lite platform, a compact model has been derived from it.This model has been deployed on an Android device as an edge device, carrying forward from the previous context.According to the assessment, the suggested classification model, designed to categorize 11 different irregularities within the electrocardiogram (ECG) dataset comprising 10,646 patients, achieves an accuracy level comparable to 83.45%.Ultimately, the performed comparisons reveal that the proposed model exhibits competitive performance when compared to alternative approaches that rely on standard deep learning models.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicSensor Technology and Measurement SystemsFrench-language works237,207