MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407920589 · doi:10.18280/jesa.580118

Smoothing and Denoising ECG Signals Based on Modified Smoothing Spline and Discrete Wavelet

2025· article· en· W4407920589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akram Jaddoa Khalaf, Hayder Mazin Makki Alibraheemi, Shamam Alwash, Sarmad Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingSmoothing splineNoise reductionWaveletArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Spline (mechanical)AlgorithmMathematicsComputer visionEngineeringSpline interpolation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoothing and denoising ECG signals are challenging in biomedical signal processing applications.This paper proposes a new smoothing and denoising ECG signal method based on a proposed modified smoothing spline (MSS) method and mean discrete wavelet (MDW).The traditional smoothing spline (TSS) method uses a certain smoothing parameter value for overall samples of the noisy signal with moderate performance.On the other hand, the proposed modified version of the smoothing spline method is based on utilizing a range of smoothing parameter values for each sample instead of a single value.The smoothing parameter values are selected according to the MDW value to improve the method's smoothing and denoising performance.The method is evaluated using the MIT-BIH-arrhythmia (MBA) database, and the obtained results illustrate a high smoothing and denoising performance without losing signal information.The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the Mean Square Error (MSE), and the Percent Root Mean Square Difference (PRD) are the parameters used to evaluate the method's performance.Based on white Gaussian noise at 10 dB input SNR, the results are 8.14 dB improved SNR, 0.0015 MSE, and 12.68 PRD.The evaluation results for the proposed method show a high performance compared with the TSS and the existing 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207