MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186211236 · doi:10.2196/27765

Validation of Heart Rate Extracted From Wrist-Based Photoplethysmography in the Perioperative Setting: Prospective Observational Study

2021· article· en· W3186211236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eveline H. J. Mestrom, Ruben Deneer, A. Bonomi, Jenny Margarito, Jos Gelissen, Reinder Haakma, H.H.M. Korsten, Volkher Scharnhorst, R. Arthur Bouwman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRijksdienst voor Ondernemend NederlandITEA
KeywordsPhotoplethysmogramMedicineHeart ratePerioperativeLimits of agreementGold standard (test)WristAnesthesiaCardiologySurgeryBlood pressureInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measurement of heart rate (HR) through an unobtrusive, wrist-worn optical HR monitor (OHRM) could enable earlier recognition of patient deterioration in low acuity settings and enable timely intervention. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the agreement between the HR extracted from the OHRM and the gold standard 5-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) connected to a patient monitor during surgery and in the recovery period. METHODS: In patients undergoing surgery requiring anesthesia, the HR reported by the patient monitor's ECG module was recorded and stored simultaneously with the photopletysmography (PPG) from the OHRM attached to the patient's wrist. The agreement between the HR reported by the patient's monitor and the HR extracted from the OHRM's PPG signal was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis during the surgical and recovery phase. RESULTS: A total of 271.8 hours of data in 99 patients was recorded simultaneously by the OHRM and patient monitor. The median coverage was 86% (IQR 65%-95%) and did not differ significantly between surgery and recovery (Wilcoxon paired difference test P=.17). Agreement analysis showed the limits of agreement (LoA) of the difference between the OHRM and the ECG HR were within the range of 5 beats per minute (bpm). The mean bias was -0.14 bpm (LoA between -3.08 bpm and 2.79 bpm) and -0.19% (LoA between -5 bpm to 5 bpm) for the PPG- measured HR compared to the ECG-measured HR during surgery; during recovery, it was -0.11 bpm (LoA between -2.79 bpm and 2.59 bpm) and -0.15% (LoA between -3.92% and 3.64%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that an OHRM equipped with a PPG sensor can measure HR within the ECG reference standard of -5 bpm to 5 bpm or -10% to 10% in the perioperative setting when the PPG signal is of sufficient quality. This implies that an OHRM can be considered clinically acceptable for HR monitoring in low acuity hospitalized patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207