MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787885235 · doi:10.22489/cinc.2017.026-452

Challenges in Using Seismocardiography for Blood Pressure Monitoring

2017· article· en· W2787885235 on OpenAlexaff
Kasper S�rensen, Ajay Verma, Andrew P. Blaber, John M. Zanetti, Samuel Emil Schmidt, Johannes J. Struijk, Kouhyar Tavakolian

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in cardiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramBlood pressureSupine positionMedicinePulse pressureCardiologyPulse (music)Internal medicinePlethysmographAnesthesiaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capability of continuously and non-invasive blood pressure (BP) monitoring is valuable in the clinical setting.Pulse transit time (PTT) has shown the promise to track changes in the arterial BP.This study examines the efficacy of seismocardiogram (SCG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG) combination for timing the proximal and distal pulse respectively of a pulse wave.The PTT is defined as a difference between the proximal and distal timing of a pulse wave.Methods: A total of 18 subjects participated in the study.Subjects were subjected to a lower-body negative pressure (LBNP) protocol to -60 mmHg.Electrocardiogram (ECG), SCG, PPG and BP was recorded simultaneously during the LNBP protocol.Subjects that endured negative pressure to -40mmHg, had SCG signals with distinct AO points and for whom the average BP was lower in the final stage of LBNP compared to supine baseline were included in data analysis.A simple logarithmic model was used to estimate BP based on PTT.Estimated BP was then correlated with PTT.Results: A total of 7 subjects were included in the final data analysis.On an average the subjects systolic BP dropped during the LBNP protocol and PTT was shortened.None of these changes were significant.For 3 subjects the correlation between PTT and estimated systolic blood pressure was significant.Conclusion: The current study showed a trend toward shorter PTT as blood pressure lowers, but the trend was weak and not consistent.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.009

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.302
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in cardiologySame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207