MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian Examination Of Equivalence Between Electrocardiogram-derived Heart Rate Variability And Photoplethysmogram-derived Heart Rate Variability

2023· article· en· W4387062242 on OpenAlexaff
Hayden Dewig, Jeremy N. Cohen, Jason S. Au, Eric Renaghan, Miriam Leary, Brian K. Leary, Matthew S. Tenan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityPhotoplethysmogramStandard deviationElectrocardiographyHeartbeatQRS complexHeart rateCardiologyMathematicsStatisticsMedicineInternal medicineComputer scienceBlood pressureTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart rate variability (HRV) is a common measure of autonomic nervous system function used in both clinical and performance settings. HRV is measured by detecting repeated QRS intervals via electrocardiography (ECG). Consumer wearables commonly report “HRV” metrics by using photoplethysmography (PPG) detected at the wrist or finger. The PPG signal is a measure of blood flow versus the electrical ECG signal and although the calculations for the variability indices are similar, the outcomes of PPG-derived HRV (termed PRV) may not be an equivalent measure. One potential cause of dissociation between HRV and PRV is the variability in pulse transit time (PTT; time between heartbeat and peripheral pulse). PURPOSE: To determine if PRV measured with PPG is equivalent to HRV. METHODS: The data used were from two separate publicly accessible sources. ECG data from 1,084 subjects were obtained from the PhysioNet Autonomic Aging dataset and individual PTT variances for both the wrist (n = 26) and finger (n = 29) were derived from Rajala et al (2018). A Bayesian simulation was constructed whereby the individual arrival times of the PPG wave were calculated by placing a Gaussian prior on the 1,084 ECG series. The standard deviation of the prior corresponds to the variances from Rajala et al (2018). This was simulated 10,000 times for each PTT variance (total 596,200,000 simulated PPG series). 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. RESULTS: Results of the ROPE analysis are shown in Figure 1. As the SD of PTT increases, the equivalence of PRV and HRV decreases for both SDNN (A) and RMSSD (B). CONCLUSION: To be deemed “equivalent,” PTT variance should be <1 SD and < 2.5 SD for RMSSD and SDNN, respectively. For individuals with greater PTT variability, PRV is not a surrogate for HRV .

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207