Hypertension Assessment Using Photoplethysmography: A Risk Stratification Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is a common chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Early screening and diagnosis of hypertension plays a major role in its prevention and in the control of CVDs. Our study discusses the early screening of hypertension while using the morphological features of photoplethysmography (PPG). Numerous morphological features of PPG and its derivative waves were defined and extracted. Six types of feature selection methods were chosen to screen and evaluate these PPG morphological features. The optimal features were comprehensively analyzed in relation to the physiological processes of the cardiovascular circulatory system. Particularly, the intrinsic relation and physiological significance between the formation process of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and PPG morphology features were analyzed in depth. A variety of linear and nonlinear classification models were established for the comparison trials. The F1 scores for the normotension versus prehypertension, normotension and prehypertension versus hypertension, and normotension versus hypertension trials were 72.97%, 81.82%, and 92.31%, respectively. In summary, this study established a PPG characteristic analysis model and established the intrinsic relationship between SBP and PPG characteristics. Finally, the risk stratification of hypertension at different stages was examined and compared based on the optimal feature subset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".