MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artifact Management for Cerebral Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Signals: A Systematic Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4402597093 on OpenAlexafffund
Tobias Bergmann, Nuray Vakitbilir, Alwyn Gomez, Abrar Islam, Kevin Y. Stein, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Logan Froese, Frederick A. Zeiler

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPan Am ClinicUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtifact (error)Computer scienceModality (human–computer interaction)Scope (computer science)Systematic reviewArtificial intelligenceData miningMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artifacts induced during patient monitoring are a main limitation for near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) as a non-invasive method of cerebral hemodynamic monitoring. There currently does not exist a robust "gold-standard" method for artifact management for these signals. The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine the literature on existing artifact management methods for cerebral NIRS signals recorded in animals and humans. A search of five databases was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search yielded 806 unique results. There were 19 articles from these results that were included in this review based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. There were an additional 36 articles identified in the references of select articles that were also included. The methods outlined in these articles were grouped under two major categories: (1) motion and other disconnection artifact removal methods; (2) data quality improvement and physiological/other noise artifact filtering methods. These were sub-categorized by method type. It proved difficult to quantitatively compare the methods due to the heterogeneity of the effectiveness metrics and definitions of artifacts. The limitations evident in the existing literature justify the need for more comprehensive comparisons of artifact management. This review provides insights into the available methods for artifact management in cerebral NIRS and justification for a homogenous method to quantify the effectiveness of artifact management methods. This builds upon the work of two existing reviews that have been conducted on this topic; however, the scope is extended to all artifact types and all NIRS recording types. Future work by our lab in cerebral NIRS artifact management will lie in a layered artifact management method that will employ different techniques covered in this review (including dynamic thresholding, autoregressive-based methods, and wavelet-based methods) amongst others to remove varying artifact types.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioengineeringSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207