A methodological comparison of the <scp>P</scp>orges algorithm, fast <scp>F</scp>ourier transform, and autoregressive spectral analysis for the estimation of heart rate variability in 5‐month‐old infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little empirical evidence exists on the comparability of heart rate variability (HRV) quantification methods commonly used in infants. The aim was to compare three methods of HRV estimation: (1) fast Fourier transform (FFT), (2) autoregressive (AR), and (3) the Porges methods. HRV was estimated in 63 healthy 5-month-old infants. HRV parameters were strongly correlated across methods (.92-.99) but yielded significantly different mean HRV estimates (Porges method > FFT > AR). There was no systematic bias over the whole range of values between the two spectral approaches, while differences between the Porges method and the spectral estimates were systematically greater for larger values. Additional comparative studies are needed to explore the between-method agreement across a range of physiological conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".