MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reflective Multi-PD PPG Sensor for Health Monitoring Under Indoor Ambient Light

2025· article· W7124870292 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Anabestani, Željko Žilić, Sharmistha Bhadra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLight intensitySIGNAL (programming language)IrradianceZemaxPhotoplethysmogramWindow (computing)SunlightLight source

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a flexible, reflective PPG sensor optimized for operation under indoor ambient light without the need for dedicated active illumination such as LED. Using a multi-photodetector (PD) around an optical window, we systematically investigate the impact of window size and light intensity on PPG signal strength and quality. A layered skin model and irradiance simulations in Zemax OpticStudio reveal that reflected light is predominantly center-focused, influencing effective signal capture. AC/DC ratios and AC photocurrents were measured under filtered red and green light at varying lux levels. Results show an optimal performance is achieved at a$10 \times 10 \text{mm}^{2}$window size, beyond which light capture diminishes due to spatial distribution limits. The red filtered light demonstrated superior signal strength at lower lux due to deeper tissue penetration and lower absorption. With the optimized$10 \times 10 \text{mm}^{2}$window size the sensor can acquire reliable PPG signal with detectable AC photocurrents$>10^{-11} \mathrm{A}$and AC/DC >0.008, highlighting its potential for low power, wearable health monitoring applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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