Toward a Robust Estimation of Respiratory Rate From Pulse Oximeters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOAL: Current methods for estimating respiratory rate (RR) from the photoplethysmogram (PPG) typically fail to distinguish between periods of high- and low-quality input data, and fail to perform well on independent "validation" datasets. The lack of robustness of existing methods directly results in a lack of penetration of such systems into clinical practice. The present work proposes an alternative method to improve the robustness of the estimation of RR from the PPG. METHODS: The proposed algorithm is based on the use of multiple autoregressive models of different orders for determining the dominant respiratory frequency in the three respiratory-induced variations (frequency, amplitude, and intensity) derived from the PPG. The algorithm was tested on two different datasets comprising 95 eight-minute PPG recordings (in total) acquired from both children and adults in different clinical settings, and its performance using two window sizes (32 and 64 seconds) was compared with that of existing methods in the literature. RESULTS: The proposed method achieved comparable accuracy to existing methods in the literature, with mean absolute errors (median, 25[Formula: see text]-75[Formula: see text] percentiles for a window size of 32 seconds) of 1.5 (0.3-3.3) and 4.0 (1.8-5.5) breaths per minute (for each dataset respectively), whilst providing RR estimates for a greater proportion of windows (over 90% of the input data are kept). CONCLUSION: Increased robustness of RR estimation by the proposed method was demonstrated. SIGNIFICANCE: This work demonstrates that the use of large publicly available datasets is essential for improving the robustness of wearable-monitoring algorithms for use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".