Blood Pressure Measurement Based on the Camera and Inertial Measurement Unit of a Smartphone: Instrument Validation 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
Background: Even though several mobile apps that can measure blood pressure have been developed, the data about the accuracy of these apps are limited. Objective: We assessed the accuracy of AlwaysBP (test) in blood pressure measurement compared with the standard, cuff-based, manual method of brachial blood pressure measurement (reference). Methods: AlwaysBP is a smartphone software that estimates systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) based on pulse transit time (PTT). PTT was calculated with a finger photoplethysmogram and seismocardiogram using, respectively, the camera and inertial measurement unit sensor of a commercially available smartphone. After calculating PTT, SBP and DBP were estimated via the Bramwell-Hill and Moens-Korteweg equations. A calibration process was carried out 3 times for each participant to determine the input parameters of the equations. This study was conducted from March to August 2021 at Chungnam National University Sejong Hospital with 87 participants aged between 19 and 70 years who met specific conditions. The primary analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the test method compared with the reference method for the entire study population. The secondary analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the test method for up to 4 weeks in 15 participants. At enrollment, gender, arm circumference, and blood pressure distribution were considered according to current guidelines. Results: Among the 87 study participants, 45 (52%) individuals were male, and the average age was 35.6 (SD 10.4) years. Hypertension was diagnosed in 14 (16%) participants before this study. The mean test and reference SBPs were 120.0 (SD 18.8) and 118.7 (SD 20.2) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean 1.2, SD 7.1 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference SBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 57.5% (150/261), 84.3% (220/261 ), and 94.6% (247/261) of measurements. The mean test and reference DBPs were 80.1 (SD 12.6) and 81.1 (SD 14.4) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean -1.0, SD 6.0 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference DBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 75.5% (197/261), 93.9% (245/261), and 97.3% (254/261) of measurements, respectively. The secondary analysis showed that after 4 weeks, the differences between SBP and DBP were 0.1 (SD 8.8) and -2.4 (SD 7.6) mm Hg, respectively. Conclusions: AlwaysBP exhibited acceptable accuracy in SBP and DBP measurement compared with the standard measurement method, according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization protocol criteria. However, further validation studies with a specific validation protocol designed for cuffless blood pressure measuring devices are required to assess clinical accuracy. This technology can be easily applied in everyday life and may improve the general population's awareness of hypertension, thus helping to control it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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