Smartphone-Based Blood Pressure Measurement Using Transdermal Optical Imaging Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cuff-based blood pressure measurement lacks comfort and convenience. Here, we examined whether blood pressure can be determined in a contactless manner using a novel smartphone-based technology called transdermal optical imaging. This technology processes imperceptible facial blood flow changes from videos captured with a smartphone camera and uses advanced machine learning to determine blood pressure from the captured signal. METHODS: We enrolled 1328 normotensive adults in our study. We used an advanced machine learning algorithm to create computational models that predict reference systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure from facial blood flow data. We used 70% of our data set to train these models and 15% of our data set to test them. The remaining 15% of the sample was used to validate model performance. RESULTS: We found that our models predicted blood pressure with a measurement bias±SD of 0.39±7.30 mm Hg for systolic pressure, -0.20±6.00 mm Hg for diastolic pressure, and 0.52±6.42 mm Hg for pulse pressure, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results in normotensive adults fall within 5±8 mm Hg of reference measurements. Future work will determine whether these models meet the clinically accepted accuracy threshold of 5±8 mm Hg when tested on a full range of blood pressures according to international accuracy standards.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".