MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799803061 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2018.8461959

Using Accelerometric and Gyroscopic Data to Improve Blood Pressure Prediction from Pulse Transit Time Using Recurrent Neural Network

2018· article· en· W2799803061 on OpenAlexaff
Shrimanti Ghosh, Ankur Banerjee, Nilanjan Ray, Peter W. Wood, Pierre Boulanger, Raj Padwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramRecurrent neural networkStandard deviationGyroscopeBlood pressureComputer scienceArtificial neural networkSIGNAL (programming language)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsMedicineInternal medicineWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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