The Accuracy of Wearable Photoplethysmography Sensors for Telehealth Monitoring: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors have been increasingly used for remote patient monitoring, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, for the management of chronic diseases and neurological disorders. There is an urgent need to evaluate the accuracy of these devices. This scoping review considers the latest applications of wearable PPG sensors with a focus on studies that used wearable PPG sensors to monitor various health parameters. The primary objective is to report the accuracy of the PPG sensors in both real-world and clinical settings. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Studies were identified by querying the Medline, Embase, IEEE, and CINAHL databases. The goal was to capture eligible studies that used PPG sensors to monitor various health parameters for populations with a minimum of 30 participants, with at least some of the population having relevant health issues. A total of 2,996 articles were screened and 28 are included in this review. Results: The health parameters and disorders identified and investigated in this study include heart rate and heart rate variability, atrial fibrillation, blood pressure (BP), obstructive sleep apnea, blood glucose, heart failure, and respiratory rate. An overview of the algorithms used, and their limitations is provided. Conclusion: Some of the barriers identified in evaluating the accuracy of multiple types of wearable devices include the absence of reporting standard accuracy metrics and a general paucity of studies with large subject size in real-world settings, especially for parameters such as BP.
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 | 0.039 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".