Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32939024›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

New insights and best practices for the successful use of Empirical Mode Decomposition, Iterative Filtering and derived algorithms.

Angela Stallone, Antonio Cicone, Massimo Materassi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Angela StalloneIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Via di Vigna Murata 605, 00143, Roma, Italy.
Antonio CiconeIstituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali dell'Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (IAPS-INAF), Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133, Roma, Italy. antonio.cicone@inaf.it.
Massimo MaterassiIstituto dei Sistemi Complessi del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ISC-CNR), Via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino (Firenze), Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Algorithms based on Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) and Iterative Filtering (IF) are largely implemented for representing a signal as superposition of simpler well-behaved components called Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs). Although they are more suitable than traditional methods for the analysis of nonlinear and nonstationary signals, they could be easily misused if their known limitations, together with the assumptions they rely on, are not carefully considered. In this work, we examine the main pitfalls and provide caveats for the proper use of the EMD- and IF-based algorithms. Specifically, we address the problems related to boundary errors, to the presence of spikes or jumps in the signal and to the decomposition of highly-stochastic signals. The consequences of an improper usage of these techniques are discussed and clarified also by analysing real data and performing numerical simulations. Finally, we provide the reader with the best practices to maximize the quality and meaningfulness of the decomposition produced by these techniques. In particular, a technique for the extension of signal to reduce the boundary effects is proposed; a careful handling of spikes and jumps in the signal is suggested; the concept of multi-scale statistical analysis is presented to treat highly stochastic signals.

Identifiers

PMID32939024
PMCPMC7495475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.