Evaluation of Sibel’s Advanced Neonatal Epidermal (ANNE) wireless continuous physiological monitor in Nairobi, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring (MCPM) technologies assist with early detection of preventable and treatable causes of neonatal mortality. Evaluating accuracy of novel MCPM technologies is critical for their appropriate use and adoption. METHODS: We prospectively compared the accuracy of Sibel's Advanced Neonatal Epidermal (ANNE) technology with Masimo's Rad-97 pulse CO-oximeter with capnography and Spengler's Tempo Easy reference technologies during four evaluation rounds. We compared accuracy of heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and skin temperature using Bland-Altman plots and root-mean-square deviation analyses (RMSD). Sibel's ANNE algorithms were optimized between each round. We created Clarke error grids with zones of 20% to aid with clinical interpretation of HR and RR results. RESULTS: Between November 2019 and August 2020 we collected 320 hours of data from 84 neonates. In the final round, Sibel's ANNE technology demonstrated a normalized bias of 0% for HR and 3.1% for RR, and a non-normalized bias of -0.3% for SpO2 and 0.2°C for temperature. The normalized spread between 95% upper and lower limits-of-agreement (LOA) was 4.7% for HR and 29.3% for RR. RMSD for SpO2 was 1.9% and 1.5°C for temperature. Agreement between Sibel's ANNE technology and the reference technologies met the a priori-defined thresholds for 95% spread of LOA and RMSD. Clarke error grids showed that all HR and RR observations were within a 20% difference. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest acceptable agreement between Sibel's ANNE and reference technologies. Clinical effectiveness, feasibility, usability, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness investigations are necessary for large-scale implementation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".