Evaluation of the signal quality of wrist-based photoplethysmography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Wearable devices with embedded photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors enable continuous monitoring of cardiovascular activity, allowing for the detection cardiovascular problems, such as arrhythmias. However, the quality of wrist-based PPG is highly variable, and is subject to artifacts from motion and other interferences. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the signal quality obtained from wrist-based PPG when used in an ambulatory setting. APPROACH: Ambulatory data were collected over a 24 h period for 10 elderly, and 16 non-elderly participants. Visual assessment is used as the gold standard for PPG signal quality, with inter-rater agreement evaluated using Fleiss' Kappa. With this gold standard, 5 classifiers were evaluated using a modified 13-fold cross-validation approach. MAIN RESULTS: A Random Forest quality classification algorithm showed the best performance, with an accuracy of 74.5%, and was then used to evaluate 24 h long ambulatory wrist-based PPG measurements. SIGNIFICANCE: In general, data quality was high at night, and low during the day. Our results suggest wrist-based PPG may be best for continuous cardiovascular monitoring applications during the night, but less useful during the day unless methods can be identified to improve low quality signal segments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".