The Current State of Mobile Phone Apps for Monitoring Heart Rate, Heart Rate Variability, and Atrial Fibrillation: Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile phone apps capable of monitoring arrhythmias and heart rate (HR) are increasingly used for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of HR and rhythm disorders such as atrial fibrillation (AF). These apps involve either the use of (1) photoplethysmographic recording or (2) a handheld external electrocardiographic recording device attached to the mobile phone or wristband. OBJECTIVE: This review seeks to explore the current state of mobile phone apps in cardiac rhythmology while highlighting shortcomings for further research. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the use of mobile phone devices by searching PubMed and EMBASE from their inception to October 2018. Potentially relevant papers were then compared against a checklist for relevance and reviewed independently for inclusion, with focus on 4 allocated topics of (1) mobile phone monitoring, (2) AF, (3) HR, and (4) HR variability (HRV). RESULTS: The findings of this narrative review suggest that there is a role for mobile phone apps in the diagnosis, monitoring, and screening for arrhythmias and HR. Photoplethysmography and handheld electrocardiograph recorders are the 2 main techniques adopted in monitoring HR, HRV, and AF. CONCLUSIONS: A number of studies have demonstrated high accuracy of a number of different mobile devices for the detection of AF. However, further studies are warranted to validate their use for large scale AF screening.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".