MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement of Cardiac Parameters by Motion Artifacts Free Photoplethysmography Signals

2020· article· en· W3039559049 on OpenAlexaff
Seyedfakhreddin Nabavi, Shibam Debbarma, Sharmistha Bhadra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramComputer scienceAccelerometerAdaptive filterComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSIGNAL (programming language)Signal processingFilter (signal processing)Artifact (error)Frequency domainDigital signal processingAlgorithmComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past, it has been extensively shown that photoplethysmography (PPG) signal has sufficient information to being utilized for monitoring of various cardiorespiratory parameters. However, motion artifacts, which caused by the voluntary or involuntary movements of the subject, degrade the accuracy and reliability of such a monitoring-based technique. In this work, we propose a novel signal processing methodology to efficiently and effectively remove the motion artifacts from the acquired PPG signals. The propounded technique includes the stop-band filters to filter out the motion artifacts frequencies. The central rejection frequencies of the filters are determined by analysis of accelerometer output signals in the frequency domain. Results illustrate that our proposed motion artifacts removal technique can enhance the accuracy estimation of different cardiorespiratory parameters, such as heart-rate, respiratory cycle, and blood oxygen saturation, in comparison to the PPG signals with the motion artifacts. We demonstrate the superiorities of our proposed method in terms of ease of implementation as well as efficiency by direct comparison to the conventional adaptive filtering methods.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207