Cross Dataset Analysis for Generalizability of HRV-Based Stress Detection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress is an increasingly prevalent mental health condition across the world. In Europe, for example, stress is considered one of the most common health problems, and over USD 300 billion are spent on stress treatments annually. Therefore, monitoring, identification and prevention of stress are of the utmost importance. While most stress monitoring is carried out through self-reporting, there are now several studies on stress detection from physiological signals using Artificial Intelligence algorithms. However, the generalizability of these models is only rarely discussed. The main goal of this work is to provide a monitoring proof-of-concept tool exploring the generalization capabilities of Heart Rate Variability-based machine learning models. To this end, two Machine Learning models are used, Logistic Regression and Random Forest to analyze and classify stress in two datasets differing in terms of protocol, stressors and recording devices. First, the models are evaluated using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation with train and test samples from the same dataset. Next, a cross-dataset validation of the models is performed, that is, leave-one-subject-out models trained on a Multi-modal Dataset for Real-time, Continuous Stress Detection from Physiological Signals dataset and validated using the University of Waterloo stress dataset. While both logistic regression and random forest models achieve good classification results in the independent dataset analysis, the random forest model demonstrates better generalization capabilities with a stable F1 score of 61%. This indicates that the random forest can be used to generalize HRV-based stress detection models, which can lead to better analyses in the mental health and medical research field through training and integrating different models.
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 | 0.077 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".