Synthetic photoplethysmogram generation using two Gaussian functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the performance of photoplethysmogram (PPG) event detection algorithms requires a large number of PPG signals with different noise levels and sampling frequencies. As publicly available PPG databases provide few options, artificially constructed PPG signals can also be used to facilitate this evaluation. Here, we propose a dynamic model to synthesize PPG over specified time durations and sampling frequencies. In this model, a single pulse was simulated by two Gaussian functions. Additionally, the beat-to-beat intervals were simulated using a normal distribution with a specific mean value and a specific standard deviation value. To add periodicity and to generate a complete signal, the circular motion principle was used. We synthesized three classes of pulses by emulating three different templates: excellent (systolic and diastolic waves are salient), acceptable (systolic and diastolic waves are not salient), and unfit (systolic and diastolic waves are noisy). The optimized model fitting of the Gaussian functions to the templates yielded 0.99, 0.98, and 0.85 correlations between the template and synthetic pulses for the excellent, acceptable, and unfit classes, respectively, with mean square errors of 0.001, 0.003, and 0.017, respectively. By comparing the heart rate variability of real PPG and randomly synthesized PPG for 5 min in 116 records from the MIMIC III database, strong correlations were found in SDNN, RMSSD, LF, HF, SD1, and SD2 (0.99, 0.89, 0.84, 0.89, 0.90 and 0.95, respectively).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".