Ratio-Independent Blood Pressure Estimation by Modeling the Oscillometric Waveform Envelope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oscillometry is the most common measurement method used in electronic blood pressure (BP) monitors. However, most of the existing oscillometric algorithms employ empirical ratios on the oscillometric waveform envelope (OMWE) to determine the systolic pressure (SP) and diastolic pressure (DP). As these algorithms do not consider the cardiovascular system parameters that may vary due to health conditions or age, the pressure estimates are not always reliable. In this paper, we develop a new mathematical model for the OMWE by incorporating an existing model of the cuff-arm-artery system. The unique feature of our developed model is that it explicitly represents the relationship between the OMWE and the SP and DP. Based on our developed model, we propose a new ratio-independent oscillometric BP estimation method. The proposed method is based on minimizing the sum of the squared errors between our model and the OMWE using the trust-region-reflective algorithm. Our proposed method is validated in a pilot study against Omron HEM-790IT and BpTRU BMP-100 BP monitors. It is found that the mean absolute error of the proposed method in estimating SP and DP is 4.60 and 4.53 mmHg, respectively, relative to the Omron monitor, and 3.66 and 2.84 mmHg, respectively, relative to the BpTRU monitor. The proposed model thus shows promise toward developing robust BP estimation methods.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".