Photoplethysmographic determination of the respiratory rate in acutely ill patients: validation of a new algorithm and implementation into a biomedical device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory rate is among the first vital signs to change in deteriorating patients. The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of respiratory rate measurements using a specifically dedicated reflection-mode photoplethysmographic signal analysis in a pathological condition (PPG-RR) and to validate its implementation within medical devices. This study is derived from a data mining project, including all consecutive patients admitted to our ICU (ReaSTOC study, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02893462). During the evaluation phase of the algorithm, PPG-RR calculations were retrospectively performed on PPG waveforms extracted from the data warehouse and compared with RR reference values. During the prospective phase, PPG-RR calculations were automatically and continuously performed using a dedicated device (FreeO 2 , Oxynov, Québec, QC, Canada). In all phases, reference RR was measured continuously using electrical thoracic impedance and chronometric evaluation (Manual-RR) over a 30-s period. In total, 201 ICU patients’ recordings (SAPS II 51.7 ± 34.6) were analysed during the retrospective evaluation phase, most of them being admitted for a respiratory failure and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. PPG-RR determination was available in 95.5% cases, similar to reference (22 ± 4 vs. 22 ± 5 c/min, respectively; p = 1), and well correlated with reference values ( R = 0.952; p < 0.0001), with a low bias (0.1 b/min) and deviation (± 3.5 b/min). Prospective estimation of the PPG-RR on 30 ICU patients’ recordings was well correlated with the reference method (Manual-RR; r = 0.78; p < 0.001). Comparison of the methods depicted a low bias (0.5 b/min) and acceptable deviation (< ± 5.5 b/min). According to our results, PPG-RR is an interesting approach for ventilation monitoring, as this technique would make simultaneous monitoring of respiratory rate and arterial oxygen saturation possible, thus minimizing the number of sensors attached to the patient. Trial registry number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02893462
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".