Photoplethysmogram signal quality estimation using repeated Gaussian filters and cross-correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse oximeters are monitors that noninvasively measure heart rate and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). Unfortunately, pulse oximetry is prone to artifacts which negatively impact the accuracy of the measurement and can cause a significant number of false alarms. We have developed an algorithm to segment pulse oximetry signals into pulses and estimate the signal quality in real time. The algorithm iteratively calculates a signal quality index (SQI) ranging from 0 to 100. In the presence of artifacts and irregular signal morphology, the algorithm outputs a low SQI number. The pulse segmentation algorithm uses the derivative of the signal to find pulse slopes and an adaptive set of repeated Gaussian filters to select the correct slopes. Cross-correlation of consecutive pulse segments is used to estimate signal quality. Experimental results using two different benchmark data sets showed a good pulse detection rate with a sensitivity of 96.21% and a positive predictive value of 99.22%, which was equivalent to the available reference algorithm. The novel SQI algorithm was effective and produced significantly lower SQI values in the presence of artifacts compared to SQI values during clean signals. The SQI algorithm may help to guide untrained pulse oximeter users and also help in the design of advanced algorithms for generating smart alarms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".