MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230355565 · doi:10.2196/preprints.17355

Measuring Heart Rate Variability in Free-Living Conditions Using Consumer-Grade Photoplethysmography: Validation Study (Preprint)

2019· preprint· en· W4230355565 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Lam, Shahrose Aratia, Julian Wang, James Tung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityPhotoplethysmogramPreprintMedicineWearable computerComputer scienceHeart rateArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer visionFilter (signal processing)Blood pressureEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Heart rate variability (HRV) is used to assess cardiac health and autonomic nervous system capabilities. With the growing popularity of commercially available wearable technologies, the opportunity to unobtrusively measure HRV via photoplethysmography (PPG) is an attractive alternative to electrocardiogram (ECG), which serves as the gold standard. PPG measures blood flow within the vasculature using color intensity. However, PPG does not directly measure HRV; it measures pulse rate variability (PRV). Previous studies comparing consumer-grade PRV with HRV have demonstrated mixed results in short durations of activity under controlled conditions. Further research is required to determine the efficacy of PRV to estimate HRV under free-living conditions. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aims to compare PRV estimates obtained from a consumer-grade PPG sensor with HRV measurements from a portable ECG during unsupervised free-living conditions, including sleep, and examine factors influencing estimation, including measurement conditions and simple editing methods to limit motion artifacts. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> A total of 10 healthy adults were recruited. Data from a Microsoft Band 2 and a Shimmer3 ECG unit were recorded simultaneously using a smartphone. Participants wore the devices for &amp;gt;90 min during typical day-to-day activities and while sleeping. After filtering, ECG data were processed using a combination of discrete wavelet transforms and peak-finding methods to identify R-R intervals. P-P intervals were edited for deletion using methods based on outlier detection and by removing sections affected by motion artifacts. Common HRV metrics were compared, including mean N-N, SD of N-N intervals, percentage of subsequent differences &amp;gt;50 ms (pNN50), root mean square of successive differences, low-frequency power (LF), and high-frequency power. Validity was assessed using root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation coefficient (&lt;i&gt;R&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;). </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Data sets for 10 days and 9 corresponding nights were acquired. The mean RMSE was 182 ms (SD 48) during the day and 158 ms (SD 67) at night. &lt;i&gt;R&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ranged from 0.00 to 0.66, with 2 of 19 (2 nights) trials considered moderate, 7 of 19 (2 days, 5 nights) fair, and 10 of 19 (8 days, 2 nights) poor. Deleting sections thought to be affected by motion artifacts had a minimal impact on the accuracy of PRV measures. Significant HRV and PRV differences were found for LF during the day and R-R, SDNN, pNN50, and LF at night. For 8 of the 9 matched day and night data sets, &lt;i&gt;R&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; values were higher at night (&lt;i&gt;P=&lt;/i&gt;.08). P-P intervals were less sensitive to rapid R-R interval changes. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Owing to overall poor concurrent validity and inconsistency among participant data, PRV was found to be a poor surrogate for HRV under free-living conditions. These findings suggest that free-living HRV measurements would benefit from examining alternate sensing methods, such as multiwavelength PPG and wearable ECG. </sec>

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207