MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402307088 · doi:10.18280/ts.410416

Arrhythmia Classification Using Noise Filtering and 1D CNN

2024· article· en· W4402307088 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K Mallikarjunamallu, Syed Khasim

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying arrhythmias in electrocardiogram (ECG) data is critical for diagnosing and managing heart disorders.However, various types of noise in ECG data frequently pose a challenge to proper arrhythmia classification.To overcome this challenge, this study suggests a three-step process to make it more accurate to classify arrhythmias as normal (N), supraventricular (S), ventricular (V), fusion (F), or unknown (Q).In the first step of the three-step process, we add Gaussian noise to the MIT-BIH ECG data to make the classification model more reliable.Second, ECG signals are notch-filtered to eliminate noise artifacts and preserve cardiac information after Gaussian noise injection.Retaining important cardiac information while reducing noise distortion.Third, the 1D CNN receives denoised ECG data for arrhythmia classification.Five-class arrhythmias can be used to examine the ECG signals, according to the results of the suggested modeling.With a 1% error rate, the 1D-CNN-based classification system can identify N, S, V, F, and Q with 99%, 86%, 96%, 80%, and 99% accuracy.The results suggest that the three-step ECG arrhythmia categorization method improves diagnostic accuracy, enabling early treatment by healthcare experts.Its real-world applications improve cardiovascular diagnosis and patient outcomes.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207