MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009202705 · doi:10.3390/jcm9030723

Cuffless Single-Site Photoplethysmography for Blood Pressure Monitoring

2020· review· en· W3009202705 on OpenAlexafffund
Manish Hosanee, Gabriel Chan, Kaylie Welykholowa, Rachel Cooper, P. A. Kyriacou, Dingchang Zheng, John Allen, Derek Abbott, Carlo Menon, Nigel H. Lovell, Newton Howard, Wee‐Shian Chan, Kenneth Lim, R. Fletcher, Rabab Ward, Mohamed Elgendi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramMedicineBlood pressureReliability (semiconductor)Wearable computerContinuous monitoringIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicineTelecommunicationsEmbedded systemComputer scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One in three adults worldwide has hypertension, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Consequently, there is a global demand for continuous and non-invasive blood pressure (BP) measurements that are convenient, easy to use, and more accurate than the currently available methods for detecting hypertension. This could easily be achieved through the integration of single-site photoplethysmography (PPG) readings into wearable devices, although improved reliability and an understanding of BP estimation accuracy are essential. This review paper focuses on understanding the features of PPG associated with BP and examines the development of this technology over the 2010-2019 period in terms of validation, sample size, diversity of subjects, and datasets used. Challenges and opportunities to move single-site PPG forward are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations131
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207