The Accuracy of Wearable Photoplethysmography Sensors for Telehealth Monitoring: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it