Optimizing Estimates of Instantaneous Heart Rate from Pulse Wave Signals with the Synchrosqueezing Transform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With recent advances in sensor and computer technologies, the ability to monitor peripheral pulse activity is no longer limited to the laboratory and clinic. Now inexpensive sensors, which interface with smartphones or other computer-based devices, are expanding into the consumer market. When appropriate algorithms are applied, these new technologies enable ambulatory monitoring of dynamic physiological responses outside the clinic in a variety of applications including monitoring fatigue, health, workload, fitness, and rehabilitation. Several of these applications rely upon measures derived from peripheral pulse waves measured via contact or non-contact photoplethysmography (PPG). As technologies move from contact to non-contact PPG, there are new challenges. The technology necessary to estimate average heart rate over a few seconds from a noncontact PPG is available. However, a technology to precisely measure instantaneous heat rate (IHR) from non-contact sensors, on a beat-to-beat basis, is more challenging. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to develop an algorithm with the ability to accurately monitor IHR from peripheral pulse waves, which provides an opportunity to measure the neural regulation of the heart from the beat-to-beat heart rate pattern (i.e., heart rate variability). METHODS: The adaptive harmonic model is applied to model the contact or non-contact PPG signals, and a new methodology, the Synchrosqueezing Transform (SST), is applied to extract IHR. The body sway rhythm inherited in the non-contact PPG signal is modeled and handled by the notion of wave-shape function. RESULTS: The SST optimizes the extraction of IHR from the PPG signals and the technique functions well even during periods of poor signal to noise. We contrast the contact and non-contact indices of PPG derived heart rate with a criterion electrocardiogram (ECG). ECG and PPG signals were monitored in 21 healthy subjects performing tasks with different physical demands. The root mean square error of IHR estimated by SST is significantly better than commonly applied methods such as autoregressive (AR) method. In the walking situation, while AR method fails, SST still provides a reasonably good result. CONCLUSIONS: The SST processed PPG data provided an accurate estimate of the ECG derived IHR and consistently performed better than commonly applied methods such as autoregressive method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".