MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807685277 · doi:10.1002/tee.22712

Development of a real‐time adaptive delta compression algorithm for photoplethysmography system

2018· article· en· W2807685277 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Soon Chong, Kok Beng Gan, Edmond Zahedi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersMinistry of Higher Education, Malaysia
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramComputer scienceData compressionReal-time computingData acquisitionBluetoothSIGNAL (programming language)Root mean squareInterface (matter)AlgorithmComputer hardwareSimulationWirelessComputer visionEngineeringFilter (signal processing)Electrical engineeringTelecommunicationsParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoplethysmography (PPG) is a simple and low‐cost optical technique that measures the blood volume change of the microvascular bed. The multichannel PPG recording system enables researchers to study the characteristics of the PPG signal from multiple body sites. Long‐time, continuous PPG signal monitoring helps doctors in medical diagnosis and treatment. However, the development of the PPG signal acquisition system is limited by storage capacity and computational and hardware capability. Limitation in storage capacity and communication efficiency can be addressed by introducing data compression algorithms. In this paper, a single‐channel, high‐resolution (24‐bit) wireless PPG data acquisition system using Bluetooth connectivity with the adaptive delta compression algorithm is presented. A graphical user interface was developed using MATLAB to interface with the system using a serial port profile. The PPG signals were decompressed and stored in the local hard drive for future analysis. The performance of adaptive data compression algorithm was evaluated with 12 healthy subjects. Results show that the compression ratio achieved is 41.5. The mean percentile root‐mean‐square (RMS) difference at the sampling frequency of 100 Hz is 0.13%. The mean normalized percentile RMS difference value is 9.78%. The system was successfully tested in a continuous acquisition mode for up to 60 min. © 2018 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic EngineeringSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207