Quantification of Resting-State Ballistocardiogram Difference Between Clinical and Non-Clinical Populations for Ambient Monitoring of Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ballistocardiogram (BCG) is a versatile bio-signal that enables ambient remote monitoring of heart failure (HF) patients in a home setting, achieved through embedded sensors in the surrounding environment. Numerous methods of analysis are available for extracting physiological information using the BCG; however, most have been developed based on non-clinical subjects. While the difference between clinical and non-clinical populations are expected, quantification of the difference may serve as a useful tool. In this work, the differences in resting-state BCGs of the two cohorts in a sitting posture were quantified. An instrumented chair was used to collect the BCG from 29 healthy adults and 26 NYHA HF class I and II patients while seated without any stress test for five minutes. Five 20-second epochs per subject were used to calculate the waveform fluctuation metric at rest (WFMR). The WFMR was obtained in two steps. The ensemble average of the segmented BCG heartbeats within an epoch were calculated first. Mean square errors (MSE) between different ensemble average pairs were then retrieved. The MSEs were averaged to produce the WFMR. The comparison showed that the clinical cohort had higher fluctuation than the non-clinical population and had at least 82.2% separation, suggesting that greater errors may result when existing algorithms were used. The WFMR acts as a bridge that may enable important features, including the addition of error margins in parameter estimation and ways to devise a calibration strategy when resting-state BCG is unstable.
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 | 0.001 | 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".