An automated algorithm for determining respiratory rate by photoplethysmogram in children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have developed an automated algorithm to allow the measurement of respiratory rate directly from the photoplethysmogram (pulse oximeter waveform). AIM: To test the algorithm's ability to determine respiratory rate in children. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients attending a paediatric Accident and Emergency Department was monitored using a purpose-built pulse oximeter and the photoplethysmogram (PPG) recorded. Respiration was also recorded by an observer activating a push-button switch in synchronization with the child's breathing. The switch marker signals were processed to derive a manual respiratory rate that was compared with the wavelet-based oximeter respiratory rate derived from the PPG signal. RESULTS: Photoplethysmograms were obtained from 18 children aged 18 mo to 12 y, breathing spontaneously at rates of 17 to 27 breaths per minute. There was close correspondence between the wavelet-based oximeter respiration rate and the manual respiratory rate, with the difference between them being less than one breath per minute in all children. CONCLUSION: Our automated algorithm allows the accurate determination of respiratory rate from photoplethysmograms of a heterogeneous group of children. We believe that our automated wavelet-based signal-processing techniques could soon be easily incorporated into current pulse oximetry technology.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it