Bayesian fusion algorithm for improved oscillometric blood pressure estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of oscillometric algorithms have been recently proposed in the literature for estimation of blood pressure (BP). However, these algorithms possess specific strengths and weaknesses that should be taken into account before selecting the most appropriate one. In this paper, we propose a fusion method to exploit the advantages of the oscillometric algorithms and circumvent their limitations. The proposed fusion method is based on the computation of the weighted arithmetic mean of the oscillometric algorithms estimates, and the weights are obtained using a Bayesian approach by minimizing the mean square error. The proposed approach is used to fuse four different oscillometric blood pressure estimation algorithms. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated on a pilot dataset of 150 oscillometric recordings from 10 subjects. It is found that the mean error and standard deviation of error are reduced relative to the individual estimation algorithms by up to 7 mmHg and 3 mmHg in estimation of systolic pressure, respectively, and by up to 2 mmHg and 3 mmHg in estimation of diastolic pressure, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".