MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401352915 · doi:10.3390/biomedicines12081784

What Remote PPG Oximetry Tells Us about Pulsatile Volume?

2024· article· en· W4401352915 on OpenAlexaff
Gennadi Saiko

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedicines · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsatile flowVolume (thermodynamics)MedicinePulse oximetryCardiologyBiomedical engineeringAnesthesiaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While pulse oximetry using remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) is used in medicine and consumer health, sound theoretical foundations for this methodology are not established. Similarly to traditional pulse oximetry, rPPG oximetry uses two wavelengths to calculate the tissue oxygenation using the so-called ratio-of-ratios, R. However, the relationship between R and tissue oxygenation has not been derived analytically. As such, rPPG oximetry relies mostly on empirical methods. This article aimed to build theoretical foundations for pulse oximetry in rPPG geometry. Using the perturbation approach in diffuse approximation for light propagation in tissues, we obtained an explicit expression of the AC/DC ratio for the rPPG signal. Based on this ratio, the explicit expression for “ratio-of-ratios” was obtained. We have simulated the dependence of “ratio-of-ratios” on arterial blood saturation across a wide range (SaO2 = 70–100%) for several commonly used R/IR light sources (660/780, 660/840, 660/880, and 660/940 nm) and found that the obtained relationship can be modeled by linear functions with an extremely good fit (R2 = 0.98–0.99) for all considered R/IR pairs. Moreover, the location of the pulsatile volume can be extracted from rPPG data. From experimental data, we found that the depth of blood pulsations in the human forehead can be estimated as 0.6 mm on the arterial side, which points to the papillary dermis/subpapillary vascular plexus origin of the pulsatile volume.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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