Respiration Rate Estimation Based on Independent Component Analysis of Accelerometer Data: Pilot Single-Arm Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the mobile environment has developed recently, there have been studies on continuous respiration monitoring. However, it is not easy for general users to access the sensors typically used to measure respiration. There is also random noise caused by various environmental variables when respiration is measured using noncontact methods in a mobile environment. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to estimate the respiration rate using an accelerometer sensor in a smartphone. METHODS: First, data were acquired from an accelerometer sensor by a smartphone, which can easily be accessed by the general public. Second, an independent component was extracted to calibrate the three-axis accelerometer. Lastly, the respiration rate was estimated using quefrency selection reflecting the harmonic component because respiration has regular patterns. RESULTS: From April 2018, we enrolled 30 male participants. When the independent component and quefrency selection were used to estimate the respiration rate, the correlation with respiration acquired from a chest belt was 0.7. The statistical results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine whether the differences in the respiration counts acquired from the chest belt and from the accelerometer sensor were significant. The P value of the difference in the respiration counts acquired from the two sensors was .27, which was not significant. This indicates that the number of respiration counts measured using the accelerometer sensor was not different from that measured using the chest belt. The Bland-Altman results indicated that the mean difference was 0.43, with less than one breath per minute, and that the respiration rate was at the 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: There was no relevant difference in the respiration rate measured using a chest belt and that measured using an accelerometer sensor. The accelerometer sensor approach could solve the problems related to the inconvenience of chest belt attachment and the settings. It could be used to detect sleep apnea through constant respiration rate estimation in an internet-of-things environment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".