Respiratory rate estimation using respiratory sinus arrhythmia from photoplethysmography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory rate (RR) is an important measurement for ambulatory care and there is high interest in its detection using unobtrusive mobile devices. For this study, we investigated the estimation of RR from a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal that originated from a pulse oximeter sensor and had a sub-optimal sampling rate. We explored the possibility of estimating RR by extracting respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) from the PPG-derived heart rate variability (HRV) measurement using real-time algorithms. Data from 29 children and 13 adults undergoing general anesthesia were analyzed. We compared the RSA power derived from electrocardiography (ECG) with PPG at the reference RR derived from capnography. The power of the PPG was significantly higher than that of the ECG (182.42 ± 36.75 dB vs. 162.30 ± 43.66 dB). Further, the mean RR error for PPG was lower than ECG. Both PPG and ECG RR estimation techniques were more powerful and reliable in cases of spontaneous ventilation than when pressure controlled ventilation was used. The analysis of cases containing artifacts in the PPG revealed a significant increase in RR error, a trend that was less pronounced for controlled ventilation. These results indicate that the estimation of RR from the sub-optimally sampled PPG signal is possible and more reliable than from the ECG.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".