Label Propagation Techniques for Artifact Detection in Imbalanced Classes Using Photoplethysmogram Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the application of label propagation techniques to propagate labels among photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals, particularly in imbalanced class scenarios and limited data availability scenarios, where clean PPG samples are significantly outnumbered by artifact-contaminated samples. We investigated a dataset comprising PPG recordings from 1571 patients, wherein approximately 82% of the samples were identified as clean, while the remaining 18% were contaminated by artifacts. Our research compares the performance of supervised classifiers, such as conventional classifiers and neural networks (Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Transformers, Fully Convolutional Network (FCN)), with the semi-supervised Label Propagation (LP) algorithm for artifact classification in PPG signals. The results indicate that the LP algorithm achieves a precision of 91%, a recall of 90%, and an F1 score of 90% for the “artifacts” class, showcasing its effectiveness in annotating a medical dataset, even in cases where clean samples are rare. Although the K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) supervised model demonstrated good results with a precision of 89%, a recall of 95%, and an F1 score of 92%, the semi-supervised algorithm excels in artifact detection. In the case of imbalanced and limited pediatric intensive care environment data, the semi-supervised LP algorithm is promising for artifact detection in PPG signals. The results of this study are important for improving the accuracy of PPG-based health monitoring, particularly in situations in which motion artifacts pose challenges to data interpretation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".