Remote photoplethysmography with consumer smartphone reveals temporal differences between glabrous and nonglabrous skin: Pilot in vivo study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is a noninvasive optical technology, with applications including vital sign extraction and patient monitoring. The PPG acquisition skin type may be of importance. Skin is either nonglabrous (~90%) or glabrous (~10%). Clinical PPG collection is typically from glabrous (fingerpad), while proliferating wearables collecting PPG, which may perform critical functions like arrythmia detection, often acquire from atypical sites. Glabrous skin has significant differences from nonglabrous, including microcirculation, yet comparisons between their PPG signals have not been well reported. Using a smartphone-based remote/contactless PPG, a pilot dataset was collected from the hands (palmar/dorsal) of five healthy volunteers. The data shows statistically significant lead time (52 ± 36 ms) of glabrous over nonglabrous. Further, a trend of glabrous amplitude increase over nonglabrous (31%) was found. Although our study has a small number of participants, these results further the characterization of PPG skin differences, and can be used to inform development of PPG-based devices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it