Diagnostic Performance of a Smart Device With Photoplethysmography Technology for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Pilot Study (Pre-mAFA II Registry)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. The asymptomatic nature and paroxysmal frequency of AF lead to suboptimal early detection. A novel technology, photoplethysmography (PPG), has been developed for AF screening. However, there has been limited validation of mobile phone and smart band apps with PPG compared to 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG). OBJECTIVE: We investigated the feasibility and accuracy of a mobile phone and smart band for AF detection using pulse data measured by PPG. METHODS: A total of 112 consecutive inpatients were recruited from the Chinese PLA General Hospital from March 15 to April 1, 2018. Participants were simultaneously tested with mobile phones (HUAWEI Mate 9, HUAWEI Honor 7X), smart bands (HUAWEI Band 2), and 12-lead ECG for 3 minutes. RESULTS: In all, 108 patients (56 with normal sinus rhythm, 52 with persistent AF) were enrolled in the final analysis after excluding four patients with unclear cardiac rhythms. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of the smart band PPG were 95.36% (95% CI 92.00%-97.40%) and 99.70% (95% CI 98.08%-99.98%), respectively. The positive predictive value of the smart band PPG was 99.63% (95% CI 97.61%-99.98%), the negative predictive value was 96.24% (95% CI 93.50%-97.90%), and the accuracy was 97.72% (95% CI 96.11%-98.70%). Moreover, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of mobile phones with PPG for AF detection were over 94%. There was no significant difference after further statistical analysis of the results from the different smart devices compared with the gold-standard ECG (P>.99). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm based on mobile phones and smart bands with PPG demonstrated good performance in detecting AF and may represent a convenient tool for AF detection in at-risk individuals, allowing widespread screening of AF in the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-OOC-17014138; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=24191 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/76WXknvE6).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".