MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587649185 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001841

Validity of the Elite HRV Smartphone Application for Examining Heart Rate Variability in a Field-Based Setting

2017· article· en· W2587649185 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityConfidence intervalLimits of agreementStatisticsMedicinePsychologyHeart rateInternal medicineMathematicsNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perrotta, AS, Jeklin, AT, Hives, BA, Meanwell, LE, and Warburton, DER. Validity of the elite HRV smartphone application for examining heart rate variability in a field-based setting. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2296-2302, 2017-The introduction of smartphone applications has allowed athletes and practitioners to record and store R-R intervals on smartphones for immediate heart rate variability (HRV) analysis. This user-friendly option should be validated in the effort to provide practitioners confidence when monitoring their athletes before implementing such equipment. The objective of this investigation was to examine the relationship and validity between a vagal-related HRV index, rMSSD, when derived from a smartphone application accessible with most operating systems against a frequently used computer software program, Kubios HRV 2.2. R-R intervals were recorded immediately upon awakening over 14 consecutive days using the Elite HRV smartphone application. R-R recordings were then exported into Kubios HRV 2.2 for analysis. The relationship and levels of agreement between rMSSDln derived from Elite HRV and Kubios HRV 2.2 was examined using a Pearson product-moment correlation and a Bland-Altman Plot. An extremely large relationship was identified (r = 0.92; p < 0.0001; confidence interval [CI] 95% = 0.90-0.93). A total of 6.4% of the residuals fell outside the 1.96 ± SD (CI 95% = -12.0 to 7.0%) limits of agreement. A negative bias was observed (mean: -2.7%; CI 95% = -3.10 to -2.30%), whose CI 95% failed to fall within the line of equality. Our observations demonstrated differences between the two sources of HRV analysis. However, further research is warranted, as this smartphone HRV application may offer a reliable platform when assessing parasympathetic modulation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.309 · 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