Metrological Characterization of a Method for Blood Pressure Estimation Based on Arterial Lumen Area Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement is a challenging issue in oscillometry. Most of the automated noninvasive BP monitors estimate BP from envelope of the measured oscillometric pulses. The peak and the trough of the oscillometric pulses are very sensitive to noise caused by breathing, heart-rate variability, motion artifacts, muscle contraction, and environmental noise. Therefore, accuracy of the estimated BP based on the oscillometric waveform envelopes is not reliable in some cases. Recently, employing a modeling approach to estimate BP, we obtained the accurate results for a set of healthy subjects. The method is based on the lumen area oscillations model and estimates BP by comparing the actual and corresponding simulated waveforms. The method's accuracy worsened when we tested it on a broader range of healthy subjects, while a significant drop was observed when the method was used for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases. The work presented in this paper represents an improved version of our previous approach. We tested the proposed method on both healthy subjects and patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases, and compared the results to two popular BP estimation algorithms: maximum amplitude algorithm and maximum/minimum slope algorithm. We observed up to 56.7% and 57.3% improvements in mean absolute error, 98.9% and 64.4% improvements in mean error, 50% and 59% improvements in standard deviation of errors, and up to 57.6% and 55.8% in measurement uncertainty for the estimated systolic and diastolic pressures, 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".