MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417174767 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ae2aa7

An electrical pulse artifact signal for estimating arterial blood pressure: a proof-of-concept study

2025· article· en· W4417174767 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Howidi, Ryan G. L. Koh, Niveetha Wijendran, Koosha Omidian, Krish Chhajer, Paul B. Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsArtifact (error)Blood pressureCuffSIGNAL (programming language)Carotid arteriesConvolutional neural networkModality (human–computer interaction)Pulse (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. Hypertension is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, for which myriad treatment options are available. It is widely considered that continuous measurement of arterial blood pressure (BP) could improve the treatment of hypertension; however, chronically monitoring patient BP remains a significant challenge. In this study, we investigated a novel approach that uses an implantable electrode to generate an artifact signal for predicting arterial BP. Approach. In isoflurane anesthetized rats ( n = 10, male), the right common carotid artery was instrumented with a multi-contact cuff electrode to acquire the artifact signal—termed the electro-vascular-gram (EVG) and the contralateral common carotid artery was catheterized to measure intra-arterial BP. The EVG signals were processed (e.g. extract Catch22 features) and applied to linear regression, random forest (RF) regressor, and convolutional neural network models to predict systolic and diastolic BP. Main results. Among the various models tested with the EVG data, the RF model + Catch22 features method achieved the highest performance, yielding predicted BP values (error < 5 mmHg) in 82.6%–100% and 84.1%–99.9% of the testing set for systolic and diastolic, respectively. A 5-fold cross-validation demonstrated similar performance by predicting BP values (error < 5 mmHg) in 91.5 ± 0.1% and 92.4 ± 0.1% of testing data for systolic and diastolic, respectively. Significance. This proof-of-concept study supports the feasibility of using an implantable electrode and machine learning models for potentially measuring arterial BP in continuous fashion. Further system development is warranted prior to clinical translation.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207