MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391929850 · doi:10.1109/bibe60311.2023.00046

Machine Learning Assessment of Heart Rate Confidence from Video Magnification

2023· article· en· W4391929850 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Elhajjar, Bruce Wallace, Andrew Law, Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnificationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConfidence intervalComputer visionMachine learningMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video magnification (VM) provides an alternative health monitoring solution by enabling contactless and remote measurement of vital signs such as heart rate (DR).DR is a crucial biomarker for assessing the overall health of individuals, and the increased need to replace traditional wearable devices and avoid complex applications of sensors makes VM essential for in-home health assessment. VM can measure HR by detecting subtle changes of skin color due to blood flow, however, external factors such as subject or camera motion, variable lighting and skin tone can greatly affect performance. Previous work implemented methods that improved the overall accuracy of VM-based HR predictions but did not indicate if a given HR prediction was likely to be correct or incorrect. This work assesses the confidence of the predicted HR using a set of features derived during the VM process. Several machine learning models were evaluated to analyze the confidence parameters from three different VM processing methods. The results show an accuracy of92.1% for an SVM model that classifies if VM-based HR is correct or incorrect. The high classification accuracy indicates the effectiveness of the confidence metrics for discriminating between correct and incorrect HR predictions using VM.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207