MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380607087 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3284818

Ultralow-Power Photoplethysmography (PPG) Sensors: A Methodological Review

2023· review· en· W4380607087 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringNoise (video)Power (physics)Power consumptionDynamic rangeSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Electrical engineeringEngineeringWirelessTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors are used to accurately, instantaneously, and noninvasively measure vital signs to provide a real-time indication of overall physical health and long-term well-being. Achieving long-term continuous monitoring is an important requirement to increase user safety and diagnostic accuracy. PPG sensors need a light-emitting diode (LED) with sufficient output power to detect the PPG signal, which consumes tens of milliwatts. On the other hand, low ac/dc ratios of < 0.1%–4%, ambient light, motion artifacts, and semiconductor noise greatly affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), dynamic range (DR), and signal quality. Specialized circuit blocks are needed to cancel these interferences, further increasing power consumption. Several ultralow-power designs, circuit techniques, and sampling schemes have been proposed in the literature to extend PPG sensors’ lifetime. This article reviews, analyzes, and critiques these solutions to provide designers with comprehensive design considerations for achieving ultralow power consumption while achieving the required SNR and DR in a PPG sensor design.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.208 · 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