Comparison of Dimensionality Reduction Approaches and Logistic Regression for ECG Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze electrocardiogram (ECG) data for the classification of five cardiac rhythms: sinus bradycardia (SB), sinus rhythm (SR), atrial fibrillation (AFIB), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), and sinus tachycardia (ST). While SR is considered normal, the other four represent types of cardiac arrhythmias. A range of methods is utilized, including the supervised learning technique K-Nearest Neighbors (KNNs), combined with dimensionality reduction approaches such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP), a modern method based in Riemannian topology. Additionally, logistic regression was applied using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods, with two distinct prior distributions: an informative normal prior and a non-informative Jeffreys prior. Performance was assessed using evaluation metrics such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and F1-score. Ultimately, the UMAP-KNN method demonstrated the best overall performance.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".