Mobile health applications for the detection of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia and an important risk factor for stroke and heart failure. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature and summarize the performance of mobile health (mHealth) devices in diagnosing and screening for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were divided into two groups: 28 studies aimed at validating smart devices for AF diagnosis, and 15 studies used smart devices to screen for AF. Evaluated technologies included smartphones, with photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse waveform measurement or accelerometer sensors, smartbands, external electrodes that can provide a smartphone single-lead electrocardiogram (iECG), such as AliveCor, Zenicor and MyDiagnostick, and earlobe monitor. The accuracy of these devices depended on the technology and the population, AliveCor and smartphone PPG sensors being the most frequent systems analysed. The iECG provided by AliveCor demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity between 66.7% and 98.5% and 99.4% and 99.0%, respectively. The PPG sensors detected AF with a sensitivity of 85.0-100% and a specificity of 93.5-99.0%. The incidence of newly diagnosed arrhythmia ranged from 0.12% in a healthy population to 8% among hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence for clinical effectiveness is limited, these devices may be useful in detecting AF. While mHealth is growing in popularity, its clinical, economic, and policy implications merit further investigation. More head-to-head comparisons between mHealth and medical devices are needed to establish their comparative effectiveness.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".