## 6 Results
### Testing Outcome of SoNFIN  
Since the pre-classification has deleted some severely corrupted PPG pulses, the number of the remainder of the PPG pulses was different for each subject. Table 2 shows the number of PPG pulses for the 10 subjects. A total of 1466 PPG pulses, excluding those pulses for the training phase, was collected and applied in the testing phase of the SoNFIN, for which the statistic error of SVs is \(-18\pm 22.0\) mL, as shown in Table 2. There are 861 PPG pulses found by the proposed algorithm, which belong to the high quality and statistic error of SVs being decreased down to \(6.4\pm 12.8\) mL, as shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the statistic errors of SVs and the numbers of pulses with middle SQI for all subjects. The statistic error of SVs is \(3.5\pm 16.1\) mL, and the total number of PPG pulses is 70. Table 5 demonstrates the statistic errors of SVs and the numbers of pulses with low SQI for all subjects. The statistic error of SVs is \(-39.5\pm 17.1\) mL, and the total number of PPG pulses is 535.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Classification Results**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Designed Outputs**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **High Quality** & **Middle Quality** & **Low Quality** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SoNFIN outputs} & High quality & 83 & 0 & 0 \\  & Middle quality & 0 & 60 & 0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Low quality & 0 & 0 & 58 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The results of SoNFIN classification in the training phase.  
Figure 8: Comparison between the desired output and SoNFIN output in the training phase.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject** & **Error (mL)** & **Pulse (NO)** \\ \hline
1 & \(-2.3\pm 15.1\) & 2 \\
2 & \(0\) & 0 \\
3 & \(-30.1\pm 6.3\) & 3 \\
4 & \(13.0\pm 12.6\) & 4 \\
5 & \(1.9\pm 18.2\) & 4 \\
6 & \(22.5\pm 6.7\) & 20 \\
7 & \(0\) & 0 \\
8 & \(1.9\pm 11.2\) & 6 \\
9 & \(-6.3\pm 3.0\) & 22 \\
10 & \(-4.5\pm 9.4\) & 9 \\  & \(3.5\pm 16.1\) (Mean \(\pm\) STD) & 70 (Sum) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The statistic error of SVs between the medis® CS2000 device and our ICG device using the PPG pulses with middle SQI.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject** & **Error (mL)** & **Pulse (NO)** \\ \hline
1 & \(-32.2\pm 22.0\) & 128 \\
2 & \(-19.2\pm 20.2\) & 235 \\
3 & \(-20.3\pm 18.5\) & 143 \\
4 & \(-16.3\pm 21.9\) & 143 \\
5 & \(-18.5\pm 20.1\) & 157 \\
6 & \(-9.4\pm 30.8\) & 118 \\
7 & \(7.7\pm 21.4\) & 79 \\
8 & \(-19.2\pm 17.0\) & 174 \\
9 & \(-18.44\pm 16.3\) & 93 \\
10 & \(-20.4\pm 18.3\) & 196 \\  & \(-18\pm 22.0\) (Mean \(\pm\) STD) & 1466 (Sum) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The statistic error of stroke volumes (SVs) between the medis® CS200 device and our ICG device using all testing PPG pulses.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject** & **Error (mL)** & **Pulse (NO)** \\ \hline
1 & \(-32.2\pm 22.0\) & 128 \\
2 & \(-19.2\pm 20.2\) & 235 \\
3 & \(-20.3\pm 18.5\) & 143 \\
4 & \(-16.3\pm 21.9\) & 143 \\
5 & \(-18.5\pm 20.1\) & 157 \\
6 & \(-9.4\pm 30.8\) & 118 \\
7 & \(7.7\pm 21.4\) & 79 \\
8 & \(-19.2\pm 17.0\) & 174 \\
9 & \(-18.44\pm 16.3\) & 93 \\
10 & \(-20.4\pm 18.3\) & 196 \\  & \(-18\pm 22.0\) (Mean \(\pm\) STD) & 1466 (Sum) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The statistic error of stroke volumes (SVs) between the medis® CS200 device and our ICG device using all testing PPG pulses.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject** & **Error (mL)** & **Pulse (NO)** \\ \hline
1 & \(-47.2\pm 14.0\) & 77 \\
2 & \(-41.2\pm 10.5\) & 91 \\
3 & \(-39.4\pm 13.8\) & 44 \\
4 & \(-37.2\pm 20.9\) & 54 \\
5 & \(-35.6\pm 13.5\) & 78 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: The statistic error of SVs between the medis® CS200 device and our ICG device using the PPG pulses with low SQI.