Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrocardiogram (ECG) records heartbeats and is potentially life-saving. However, the ECG signals (e.g., recorded by the standard ECG monitoring system or the Holter ECG monitoring system) heavily suffered from the noises. Thus, the recorded signals involve meaningful cardiac deflections, other biological waves (e.g., caused by the muscle or electrode movements), and even some noises from the monitoring devices (e.g., the power cables). These noise sources would result in inaccurate analyses of cardiac diseases, thus requiring the ECG de-noising methods in data pre-processing phase before the diagnoses. Previous work provided various ECG de-noising approaches, typically based on some filter algorithms or some wave decomposition algorithms. Most of these approaches did not profoundly consider the ECG signals’ specific data structure, and were not adaptive to the signals recorded by various devices or different skin electrodes. Inspired by the ECG recording theory, we find it available to extract noise information from noisy ECG signals directly. We propose a new ECG de-noising method implemented by the neural network, which de-noise the ECG signals without the supervision of the clean signals. The procedure in the self-supervision is straightforward: we first estimate and simulate the noise signals according to the given noisy ECG signals, and then “subtract” the simulated noises to obtain the de-noised ECG signals by the neural network. Experiments on a public dataset verify that our approach is adaptive to ECG signals from different patients and devices. Also, it is proven that the classification on the ECG signals de-noised by the proposed de-noising methods outperforms those with the traditional de-noising methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".