Blood Pressure Measurement Based on the Camera and Inertial Measurement Unit of a Smartphone: Instrument Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Even though several mobile apps that can measure blood pressure have been developed, the data about the accuracy of these apps are limited. Objective: We assessed the accuracy of AlwaysBP (test) in blood pressure measurement compared with the standard, cuff-based, manual method of brachial blood pressure measurement (reference). Methods: AlwaysBP is a smartphone software that estimates systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) based on pulse transit time (PTT). PTT was calculated with a finger photoplethysmogram and seismocardiogram using, respectively, the camera and inertial measurement unit sensor of a commercially available smartphone. After calculating PTT, SBP and DBP were estimated via the Bramwell-Hill and Moens-Korteweg equations. A calibration process was carried out 3 times for each participant to determine the input parameters of the equations. This study was conducted from March to August 2021 at Chungnam National University Sejong Hospital with 87 participants aged between 19 and 70 years who met specific conditions. The primary analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the test method compared with the reference method for the entire study population. The secondary analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the test method for up to 4 weeks in 15 participants. At enrollment, gender, arm circumference, and blood pressure distribution were considered according to current guidelines. Results: Among the 87 study participants, 45 (52%) individuals were male, and the average age was 35.6 (SD 10.4) years. Hypertension was diagnosed in 14 (16%) participants before this study. The mean test and reference SBPs were 120.0 (SD 18.8) and 118.7 (SD 20.2) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean 1.2, SD 7.1 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference SBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 57.5% (150/261), 84.3% (220/261 ), and 94.6% (247/261) of measurements. The mean test and reference DBPs were 80.1 (SD 12.6) and 81.1 (SD 14.4) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean -1.0, SD 6.0 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference DBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 75.5% (197/261), 93.9% (245/261), and 97.3% (254/261) of measurements, respectively. The secondary analysis showed that after 4 weeks, the differences between SBP and DBP were 0.1 (SD 8.8) and -2.4 (SD 7.6) mm Hg, respectively. Conclusions: AlwaysBP exhibited acceptable accuracy in SBP and DBP measurement compared with the standard measurement method, according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization protocol criteria. However, further validation studies with a specific validation protocol designed for cuffless blood pressure measuring devices are required to assess clinical accuracy. This technology can be easily applied in everyday life and may improve the general population's awareness of hypertension, thus helping to control it.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».