Causal Inference for Hypertension Prediction With Wearable E lectrocardiogram and P hotoplethysmogram Signals: Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide, and it puts a heavy burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, it is very important to detect and evaluate hypertension and related cardiovascular events to enable early prevention, detection, and management. Hypertension can be detected in a timely manner with cardiac signals, such as through an electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG) , which can be observed via wearable sensors. Most previous studies predicted hypertension from ECG and PPG signals with extracted features that are correlated with hypertension. However, correlation is sometimes unreliable and may be affected by confounding factors . Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of predicting the risk of hypertension by exploring features that are causally related to hypertension via causal inference methods. Additionally, we paid special attention to and verified the reliability and effectiveness of causality compared to correlation. Methods: We used a large public dataset from the Aurora Project , which was conducted by Microsoft Research. The dataset included diverse individuals who were balanced in terms of gender, age, and the condition of hypertension, with their ECG and PPG signals simultaneously acquired with wrist -worn wearable devices. We first extracted 205 features from the ECG and PPG signals, calculated 6 statistical metrics for these 205 features, and selected some valuable features out of the 205 features under each statistical metric. Then, 6 causal graphs of the selected features for each kind of statistical metric and hypertension were constructed with the equivalent greedy search algorithm. We further fused the 6 causal graphs into 1 causal graph and identified features that were causally related to hypertension from the causal graph . Finally, we used these features to detect hypertension via machine learning algorithms. Results: We validated the proposed method on 405 subjects. We identified 24 causal features that were associated with hypertension. The causal features could detect hypertension with an accuracy of 89%, precision of 92 % , and recall of 82%, which outperformed detection with correlation features (accuracy of 85%, precision of 88 % , and recall of 77%). Conclusions: The results indicated that the causal inference -based approach can potentially clarify the mechanism of hypertension detection with noninvasive signals and effectively detect hypertension. It also reveal ed that causality can be more reliable and effective than correlation for hypertension detection and other application scenarios.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».