Key result
A smartphone-only pulse transit time monitor achieved root-mean-square errors of 3.4-3.9 ms and detection rates >97.92% compared to a stand-alone sensor system.
Why the study?
Does a smartphone-only pulse transit time monitor accurately measure pulse transit time compared to a stand-alone sensor system in healthy subjects?
Does a smartphone-only pulse transit time monitor accurately measure pulse transit time compared to a stand-alone sensor system in healthy subjects?
A novel smartphone-based system using inertial sensors and a battery-less audio jack circuit can accurately measure pulse transit time comparably to stand-alone sensors.
This paper reports a system for monitoring pulse transit time (PTT). Using an Android smartphone and a customized sensing circuit, the system collects seismo-cardiogram (SCG), gyro-cardiogram (GCG), and photoplethysmogram (PPG) recordings. There is no need for any other external stand-alone systems. The SCG and GCG signals are recorded with the inertial sensors of the smartphone, while the PPG signal is recorded using a sensing circuit connected to the audio jack of the phone. The sensing circuit is battery-less, powered by the audio output of the smartphone using an energy harvester that converts audio tones into DC power. PPG waveforms are sampled via the microphone channel. A signal processing framework is developed and the system is experimentally verified on twenty healthy subjects at rest. The PTT is measured as the time difference between the aortic valve (AO) opening points in SCG or GCG and the fiducial points in PPG. The root-mean-square errors between the results from a stand-alone sensor system and the proposed system report 3.9 ms from SCG-based results and 3.4 ms from GCG-based results. The detection rates report more than 97.92% from both SCG and GCG results. This performance is comparable with stand-alone sensor nodes at a much lower cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2019) studied Healthy (n=20). Smartphone-only pulse transit time monitor vs. Stand-alone sensor system was evaluated on Root-mean-square error of pulse transit time and detection rate. A smartphone-only pulse transit time monitor achieved root-mean-square errors of 3.4-3.9 ms and detection rates >97.92% compared to a stand-alone sensor system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: