Novel metrics for tracking blood pressure changes incontinuous cuffless blood pressure estimations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies revealed the importance of tracking continuous blood pressure (BP) changes in monitoring and controlling hypertension and diagnosing cardiovascular diseases. However, current evaluation protocols utilize distance measures as primary metrics, which cannot properly evaluate the ability of the estimation model to track BP changes. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework which evaluates the distance and trend similarity metrics, and the composite metric of both between the reference and estimated BPs. The results of applying both widely used conventional metrics and the new proposed metrics for BP estimations are demonstrated in an example of comparing the reference with a set of different BP estimations. Then, the metrics are applied to BP estimations obtained using state-of-the-art (SOTA) algorithms. It is shown that even though SOTA algorithms have a low mean and standard deviation of absolute difference, they are not capable of tracking short-term blood pressure changes. Additionally, the proposed metrics are normalized metrics and range from -1 to 1, making them intuitively interpretable, similar to well-known correlation coefficients. Therefore, we suggest that the proposed evaluation framework should be used regularly in evaluating continuous BP monitoring systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".