Paper detail

A Nonlinear Complexity Index for Wearable PPG Cardiovascular Stability: Multiscale Validation, Systematic Evaluation Correction, and Bayesian Parameter Optimization

Cardiovascular stability estimation from wearable photoplethysmography (PPG) requires a principled nonlinear framework, yet major gaps persist in heuristic parameter selection and evaluation protocols that inflate reported performance. We introduce a Stability-Constrained Cardiovascular Stability Index (SCSI) grounded in Cardiac Stability Theory and validate it across 176,742 segments from four heterogeneous PPG datasets at three temporal scales. Cross-dataset analysis demonstrates a large Kruskal-Wallis effect size (eta2 = 0.351, p < 0.001), strong cross-scale consistency (kappa > 0.97), and significant correlation with respiratory rate across 53 ICU records (Spearman r = 0.346, p = 0.011). We identify three evaluation artifacts that inflate heuristic AUC from a true baseline of 0.573 to 0.752: segment-level cross-validation leakage, test-set normalization leakage, and pooled-AUC overweighting that conceals per-patient failure. Correcting these artifacts and applying Bayesian optimization over 15 joint parameters yields SCSI with cross-validation AUC of 0.720. On 18 held-out records, SCSI achieves pooled AUC of 0.757 (95% CI: 0.686-0.828) and negative predictive value of 0.966 for tachypnea screening, while per-record AUC of 0.497 +/- 0.207 is disclosed for transparency. External validation on 42 elective-surgery records yields AUC of 0.621, confirming cross-population generalization. Ablation analysis identifies the nonlinear complexity module as the dominant component. A sparse three-component architecture is proposed as the minimal deployable configuration. The corrected protocol provides a reproducible benchmark for future wearable cardiovascular stability indices.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.