Close
  Indian J Med Microbiol
 

Figure 2: Comparison of detection performance between the legacy and advanced reference annotation algorithm. (a) Detection rate of activation signals for the legacy (red) versus advanced reference annotation (blue) algorithm for the different test groups. advanced reference annotation outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (97 ± 4% vs. 81 ± 19%; P = 0.001). (b) Stability metric for the advanced reference annotation algorithm for the different test groups. Advanced reference annotation outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (98 ± 3%). (c) Positive detection rate for the legacy (red) versus advanced reference annotation (blue) algorithm for the different test groups. The advanced reference annotation algorithm outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (98 ± 4% vs. 88 ± 23%; P = 0.001). Twenty-six clinical cases grouped into 17 categories are shown in Table 1. Groups 12–17 represent clinical test vectors that were manipulated to challenge the advanced reference annotation algorithm (by adding noise, adding segments of catheter disconnection, for example) and were therefore not analyzed using the legacy algorithm (grey bars)

Figure 2: Comparison of detection performance between the legacy and advanced reference annotation algorithm. (a) Detection rate of activation signals for the legacy (red) versus advanced reference annotation (blue) algorithm for the different test groups. advanced reference annotation outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (97 ± 4% vs. 81 ± 19%; <i>P</i> = 0.001). (b) Stability metric for the advanced reference annotation algorithm for the different test groups. Advanced reference annotation outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (98 ± 3%). (c) Positive detection rate for the legacy (red) versus advanced reference annotation (blue) algorithm for the different test groups. The advanced reference annotation algorithm outperformed the legacy algorithm detection rate across all groups (98 ± 4% vs. 88 ± 23%; <i>P</i> = 0.001). Twenty-six clinical cases grouped into 17 categories are shown in Table 1. Groups 12–17 represent clinical test vectors that were manipulated to challenge the advanced reference annotation algorithm (by adding noise, adding segments of catheter disconnection, for example) and were therefore not analyzed using the legacy algorithm (grey bars)