Neonatal heart rate variability: a contemporary scoping review of analysis methods and clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal heart rate variability (HRV) is widely used as a research tool. However, HRV calculation methods are highly variable making it difficult for comparisons between studies. OBJECTIVES: To describe the different types of investigations where neonatal HRV was used, study characteristics, and types of analyses performed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Human neonates ≤1 month of corrected age. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: A protocol and search strategy of the literature was developed in collaboration with the McGill University Health Center's librarians and articles were obtained from searches in the Biosis, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and Web of Science databases published between 1 January 2000 and 1 July 2020. CHARTING METHODS: A single reviewer screened for eligibility and data were extracted from the included articles. Information collected included the study characteristics and population, type of HRV analysis used (time domain, frequency domain, non-linear, heart rate characteristics (HRC) parameters) and clinical applications (physiological and pathological conditions, responses to various stimuli and outcome prediction). RESULTS: Of the 286 articles included, 171 (60%) were small single centre studies (sample size <50) performed on term infants (n=136). There were 138 different types of investigations reported: physiological investigations (n=162), responses to various stimuli (n=136), pathological conditions (n=109) and outcome predictor (n=30). Frequency domain analyses were used in 210 articles (73%), followed by time domain (n=139), non-linear methods (n=74) or HRC analyses (n=25). Additionally, over 60 different measures of HRV were reported; in the frequency domain analyses alone there were 29 different ranges used for the low frequency band and 46 for the high frequency band. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal HRV has been used in diverse types of investigations with significant lack of consistency in analysis methods applied. Specific guidelines for HRV analyses in neonates are needed to allow for comparisons between studies.
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 | 0.041 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".