Heart and Breathing Rate Variations as Biomarkers for Anxiety Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With advances in portable and wearable devices, it should be possible to analyze and interpret the collected biosignals from those devices to tailor a psychological intervention to help patients. This study focuses on detecting anxiety by using a portable device that collects electrocardiogram (ECG) and respiration (RSP) signals. The feature extraction focused on heart-rate variability (HRV) and breathing-rate variability (BRV). We show that a significant change in these signals occurred between the non-anxiety-induced and anxiety-induced states. The HRV biomarkers were the mean heart rate (MHR; p¯ = 0.04), the standard deviation of the heart rate (SD; p¯ = 0.01), and the standard deviation of NN intervals (SDNN; p¯ = 0.03) for ECG signals, and the mean breath rate (MBR; p¯ = 0.002), the standard deviation of the breath rate (SD; p¯ < 0.0001), the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD; p¯ < 0.0001) and SDNN (p¯ < 0.0001) for RSP signals. This work extends the existing literature on the relationship between stress and HRV/BRV by being the first to introduce a transitional phase. It contributes to systematically processing mental and emotional impulse data in humans measured via ECG and RSP signals. On the basis of these identified biomarkers, artificial-intelligence or machine-learning algorithms, and rule-based classification, the automated biosignal-based psychological assessment of patients could be within reach. This creates a broad basis for detecting and evaluating psychological abnormalities in individuals upon which future psychological treatment methods could be built using portable and wearable 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".