Using Accelerometric and Gyroscopic Data to Improve Blood Pressure Prediction from Pulse Transit Time Using Recurrent Neural Network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a method for estimating blood pressure (BP) non-invasively from electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals. This method has potential to be used as a continuous form of BP estimation. Along with these signals, to our knowledge, for the first time in the BP measurement studies, we included accelerometric and gyroscopic signals from a wearable device to compensate for motion during continuous BP prediction. Our prediction model is a long-short-term-memory (LSTM) architecture of a recurrent neural network (RNN), which accommodates the multiscale temporal dependency between the sequential raw signal values and the corresponding systolic and diastolic BP values. We performed a study with 50 healthy volunteers. The mean difference ± standard deviation (SD) of the RNN-based approach were 0.02±4.8 for SBP and 1.5±3.7 for DBP in seated position & 2.6±6.0 for SBP and 2.7±4.5 for DBP while walking. These values meet current validation standard requirements for measurement accuracy. Our experiments also demonstrate that the proposed RNN-based approach outperformed the classical linear regression model for BP prediction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it