Why the study?
BCG provides noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring but cannot be measured in a wearable setting, whereas wearable SCG signals can be acquired from sternal accelerometers.
A deep learning model can successfully map wearable seismocardiogram signals to whole-body ballistocardiogram signals, potentially enabling noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring without bulky equipment.
Wearable SCG mapping to BCG signals may enable convenient hemodynamic monitoring; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
The ballistocardiography (BCG) signal is a measurement of the vibrations of the center of mass of the body due to the cardiac cycle and can be used for noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring. The seismocardiography (SCG) signals measure the local vibrations of the chest wall due to the cardiac cycle. While BCG is a more well-known modality, it requires the use of a modified bathroom scale or a force plate and cannot be measured in a wearable setting, whereas SCG signals can be measured using wearable accelerometers placed on the sternum. In this paper, we explore the idea of finding a mapping between zero mean and unit 12-norm SCG and BCG signal segments such that, the BCG signal can be acquired using wearable accelerometers (without retaining amplitude information). We use neural networks to find such a mapping and make use of the recently introduced UNet architecture. We trained our models on 26 healthy subjects and tested them on ten subjects. Our results show that we can estimate the aforementioned segments of the BCG signal with a median Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71 and a median absolute deviation (MAD) of 0.17. Furthermore, our model can estimate the R-I, R-J and R-K timing intervals with median absolute errors (and MAD) of 10.00 (8.90), 6.00 (5.93), and 8.00 (5.93), respectively. We show that using all three axis of the SCG accelerometer produces the best results, whereas the headto-foot SCG signal produces the best results when a single SCG axis is used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hersek et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: