MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386127207 · doi:10.1101/2023.08.24.23294449

Electrocardiogram and Photoplethysmogram-based Heart Rate Variability Are Not Equivalent: A Bayesian Simulation Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4386127207 on OpenAlexaff
Hayden Dewig, Jeremy N. Cohen, Eric Renaghan, Brian K. Leary, Jason S. Au, Matthew S. Tenan

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityStandard deviationStatisticsPhotoplethysmogramMathematicsElectrocardiographyCardiologyQRS complexMedicineAkaike information criterionInternal medicineHeart rateComputer scienceBlood pressureWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Heart rate variability (HRV) is a common measure of autonomic and cardiovascular system function assessed via electrocardiography (ECG). Consumer wearables, commonly employed in epidemiological research, use photoplethysmography (PPG) to report HRV metrics (PRV), although these may not be equivalent. One potential cause of dissociation between HRV and PRV is the variability in pulse transit time (PTT). This study sought to determine if PPG-derived HRV (i.e., PRV) is equivalent to ECG-derived HRV and ascertain if PRV measurement error is sufficient for a biomarker separate from HRV. Methods The ECG data from 1,084 subjects were obtained from the PhysioNet Autonomic Aging dataset, and individual PTT variances for both the wrist (n=42) and finger (n=49) were derived from Mol et al. A Bayesian simulation was constructed whereby the individual arrival times of the PPG wave were calculated by placing a Gaussian prior on the individual QRS-wave timings of each ECG series. The standard deviation of the prior corresponds to the PTT variances. This was simulated 10,000 times for each PTT variance. The root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) and standard deviation of N-N intervals (SDNN) were calculated for both HRV and PRV. The Region of Practical Equivalence bounds (ROPE) were set a priori at ±0.2% of true HRV. The Highest Density Interval (HDI) width, encompassing 95% of the posterior distribution, was calculated for each PTT variance. Results The lowest PTT variance (2.0 SD) corresponded to 88.4% within ROPE for SDNN and 21.4% for RMSSD. As the SD of PTT increases, the equivalence of PRV and HRV decreases for both SDNN and RMSSD. Thus, between PRV and HRV, RMSSD is nearly never equivalent and SDNN is only somewhat equivalent under very strict circumstances. The HDI interval width increases with increasing PTT variance, with the HDI width increasing at a higher rate for RMSSD than SDNN. Conclusions For individuals with greater PTT variability, PRV is not a surrogate for HRV. When considering PRV as a unique biometric measure, our findings reveal that SDNN has more favorable measurement properties than RMSSD, though both exhibit a non-uniform measurement error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207