Comparative Study of Heart Rate Extraction Methods for a Novel Intelligent Mattress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unobtrusive monitoring of the heart rate (HR) is essential for improving medical intervention. A new generation of mattress-based fiber optic sensor (FOS) is emerging for HR monitoring. The use of this FOS mattress for medical diagnosis requires appropriate advanced signal processing algorithms. In our study, we aim to weigh the performances of a novel and cheaper microbend FOS mattress by applying ballistocardiogram and HR extraction algorithms. Therefore, our study targets comparing four types of HR extraction algorithms on the FOS mattress, namely MODWT, CEEMDAN, cepstrum and clustering. The goal is to select, based on their accuracy and computational speed, the most suitable one for online or offline application purposes. Results of applying these four chosen algorithms on the FOS mattress show that the cepstrum is the most accurate algorithm with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.62 ± 1.68 BPM. However, the cepstrum is more appropriate for offline monitoring with a runtime of 662.9 ms for a 10-second signal segment. The results also show that the Maximal Overlap Direct Wavelet Transform (MODWT) is more efficient with a runtime of 4.1 milliseconds for online purposes, but with a slightly bigger MAE (6.87 ± 1.94 BPM). Both methods proved to be as efficient on the new mattress technology as past intelligent mattresses.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".