2015
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-015-1344-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fusing Continuous-Valued Medical Labels Using a Bayesian Model

Abstract: With the rapid increase in volume of time series medical data available through wearable devices, there is a need to employ automated algorithms to label data. Examples of labels include interventions, changes in activity (e.g. sleep) and changes in physiology (e.g. arrhythmias). However, automated algorithms tend to be unreliable resulting in lower quality care. Expert annotations are scarce, expensive, and prone to significant interand intra-observer variance. To address these problems, a Bayesian Continuous… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although, the PPG dataset utilized in this study was diligently annotated by multiple clinical adjudicators, the ECG dataset labels were obtained from automatic bedside Holter software, with a coarse overview by a single adjudicator for potential mislabeled cases of AF. Therefore, the ECG-based AF detection results provided in this work should be taken with some caution [11,63,64]. In fact, as demonstrated in Table 1 re-defining the labels as a function of AF burden had a significant impact on the performance of the classifier (AUC of 0.94 at 5% or more versus AUC of 0.97 at 75% or more AF burden over a 10 minute segment).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Although, the PPG dataset utilized in this study was diligently annotated by multiple clinical adjudicators, the ECG dataset labels were obtained from automatic bedside Holter software, with a coarse overview by a single adjudicator for potential mislabeled cases of AF. Therefore, the ECG-based AF detection results provided in this work should be taken with some caution [11,63,64]. In fact, as demonstrated in Table 1 re-defining the labels as a function of AF burden had a significant impact on the performance of the classifier (AUC of 0.94 at 5% or more versus AUC of 0.97 at 75% or more AF burden over a 10 minute segment).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…It is also important to note that too many naive voters (more than 13 in the case of the 2015 Challenge) can reduce the accuracy of the label or answer. In Zhu et al (2014) and Zhu et al (2015) a voting system for algorithm (and human) annotations of physiological data was described, which incorporates both the physiology and the individual annotator's accuracy as a function of objective features (such as signal quality) to produce a weighted voting scheme to guarantee that all voters added extra information. We suggest that such approaches will become ever more important as computational power becomes increasingly less expensive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This shows that the cluster type assignment can still be improved. One can for example consider a Bayesian voting approach, which has been proven to be more robust than simple majority voting [11]. Another improvement might come from better feature extraction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%