↓ Skip to main content

A Doubly Stochastic Change Point Detection Algorithm for Noisy Biological Signals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Doubly Stochastic Change Point Detection Algorithm for Noisy Biological Signals
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.01112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan Gold, Martin G. Frasch, Christophe L. Herry, Bryan S. Richardson, Xiaogang Wang

Abstract

Experimentally and clinically collected time series data are often contaminated with significant confounding noise, creating short, noisy time series. This noise, due to natural variability and measurement error, poses a challenge to conventional change point detection methods. We propose a novel and robust statistical method for change point detection for noisy biological time sequences. Our method is a significant improvement over traditional change point detection methods, which only examine a potential anomaly at a single time point. In contrast, our method considers all suspected anomaly points and considers the joint probability distribution of the number of change points and the elapsed time between two consecutive anomalies. We validate our method with three simulated time series, a widely accepted benchmark data set, two geological time series, a data set of ECG recordings, and a physiological data set of heart rate variability measurements of fetal sheep model of human labor, comparing it to three existing methods. Our method demonstrates significantly improved performance over the existing point-wise detection methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 17%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Computer Science 5 14%
Mathematics 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,458,307
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,481
of 13,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,939
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.