Nonlinear Viscoelastic Modeling of Finger Arteries: Toward Smartphone-Based Blood Pressure Monitoring via the Oscillometric Finger Pressing Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oscillometric finger pressing is a smartphone-based blood pressure (BP) monitoring method. Finger photoplethysmography (PPG) oscillations and pressure are measured during a steady increase in finger pressure, and an algorithm computes systolic BP (SP) and diastolic BP (DP) from the measurements. The objective was to assess the impact of finger artery viscoelasticity on the BP computation. METHODS: Nonlinear viscoelastic models relating transmural pressure (finger BP - applied pressure) to PPG oscillations during finger pressing were developed. The output of each model to a measured transmural pressure input was fitted to measured PPG oscillations from 15 participants. A parametric sensitivity analysis was performed via model simulations to elucidate the viscoelastic effect on the derivative-based BP computation algorithm. RESULTS: A Wiener viscoelastic model comprising a first-order transfer function followed by a static sigmoidal function fitted the measured PPG oscillations better than an elastic model containing only the static function (median (IQR) error of 30.5% (25.6%-34.0%) vs 50.9% (46.7%-53.7%); p<0.01). In Wiener model simulations, the derivative algorithm underestimated SP, especially with high pulse pressure and low transfer function cutoff frequency (i.e., greater viscoelasticity). The mean of the normalized PPG waveform at the maximum oscillation beat was found to correlate with the cutoff frequency (r = -0.8) and could thus possibly be used to compensate for viscoelasticity. CONCLUSION: Finger artery viscoelasticity negatively impacts oscillometric BP computation algorithms but can potentially be compensated for using available measurements. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings may help in converting smartphones into truly cuffless BP monitors for improving hypertension awareness and control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".