MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Method for the Measurement of the Dicrotic Notch in the Photoplethysmography Signal

2025· article· en· W4412963291 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Forster, Brady Laska, Rafik Goubran, Bruce Wallace, Peter Liu, Heidi Sveistrup

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Computer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical feature in photoplethysmography (PPG) signals is the diastolic (reflective) pressure wave following the systolic (forward) pressure wave during each compression cycle. The shape of these can often result in a feature known as the dicrotic notch. The PPG signal’s attributes provide valuable insights into cardiovascular health related to arterial vessel health, yet its measurement and characterization remain challenging due to variability and noise. We introduce an improved Gaussian decomposition algorithm to identify and quantify the forward and reflected pressure waves in individual cycles of the PPG signal. The algorithm iteratively decomposes the signal for each heartbeat into two Gaussian components, isolating the rising edge portion of the signal to model the systolic peak, followed by a model of the remaining diastolic peak. This enables robust characterization of the systolic and diastolic peaks across varying signal classes. Validation was performed on synthetic data, with parameter sweeps to assess robustness under different noise levels, and a wide range of signal morphologies then revalidated on patient data from the MIMIC-III database. Results demonstrate that the algorithm accurately identifies the PPG waveform measurements including dicrotic notch in most PPG signal classes, outperforming traditional peak detection and derivative-based methods, particularly under moderate noise conditions.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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