MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543039112 · doi:10.1109/tic-sth.2009.5444353

Oscillometric blood pressure estimation using principal component analysis and neural networks

2009· article· en· W2543039112 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamad Forouzanfar, Hilmi R. Dajani, Voicu Z. Groza, Miodrag Bolić, Sreeraman Rajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsBackpropagationWaveformArtificial neural networkComputer sciencePrincipal component analysisCascadeGradient descentArtificial intelligenceMultilayer perceptronPattern recognition (psychology)PreprocessorAlgorithmEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of systolic and diastolic pressures from the oscillometric waveform is a challenging task in noninvasive electronic blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices. Since the conventional oscillometric algorithms cannot model and extract the complex and nonlinear relationship that may exist between BP and oscillometric waveform, artificial neural networks (NNs) have been proposed as a possible alternative. However, the research on this topic has been limited to some simple architectures that directly estimate the BP from raw oscillation amplitudes (OAs). In this paper, we propose principal component analysis as a preprocessing step to decorrelate the OAs and extract the most effective components. Two architectures of NNs, namely, feed-forward and cascade-forward, are employed to estimate the BP using the preprocessed OAs. The networks are trained using the gradient descent with momentum and adaptive learning rate backpropagation algorithm and tested on a dataset of 85 BP waveforms. The performance is then compared with that of the conventional maximum amplitude algorithm and already published NN-based methods. It is found that the proposed networks achieve lower values of mean absolute error and standard deviation of error in estimation of BP compared with the other studied 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207