Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35323416›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2022

A Study on Dictionary Selection in Compressive Sensing for ECG Signals Compression and Classification.

Monica Fira, Hariton-Nicolae Costin, Liviu Goraș

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Monica FiraInstitute of Computer Science, Romanian Academy, 700481 Iasi, Romania.
Hariton-Nicolae CostinInstitute of Computer Science, Romanian Academy, 700481 Iasi, Romania.
Liviu GorașInstitute of Computer Science, Romanian Academy, 700481 Iasi, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paper proposes a comparative analysis of the projection matrices and dictionaries used for compressive sensing (CS) of electrocardiographic signals (ECG), highlighting the compromises between the complexity of preprocessing and the accuracy of reconstruction. Starting from the basic notions of CS theory, this paper proposes the construction of dictionaries (constructed directly by cardiac patterns with R-waves, centered or not-centered) specific to the application and the results of their testing. Several types of projection matrices are also analyzed and discussed. The reconstructed signals are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by standard distortion measures and by the classification of the reconstructed signals. We used a k-nearest neighbors (KNN) classifier to evaluate the reconstructed models. The KNN module was trained with the models from the mega-dictionary used in the classification block and tested with the models reconstructed with class-specific dictionaries. In addition to the KNN classifier, a neural network was used to test the reconstructed signals. The neural network was a multilayer perceptron (MLP). Moreover, the results are compared with those obtained with other compression methods, and ours proved to be superior.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData CompressionElectrocardiographyNeural Networks, Computercompressed sensingECG signalprojection matricesreconstruction dictionariessignal classifications

Identifiers

PMID35323416
PMCPMC8946021

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.