A Smart Textile Band Achieves High-Quality Electrocardiograms in Unrestrained Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrocardiography (ECG) is an essential tool in assessing equine health and fitness. However, standard ECG devices are expensive and rely on the use of adhesive electrodes, which may become detached and are associated with reduced ECG quality over time. Smart textile electrodes composed of stainless-steel fibers have previously been shown to be a suitable alternative in horses at rest and during exercise. The objective of this study was to compare ECG quality using a smart textile girth band knit with silver and carbon yarns to standard adhesive silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) electrodes. Simultaneous three-lead ECGs were recorded using a smart textile band and Ag/AgCl electrodes in 22 healthy, mixed-breed horses that were unrestrained in stalls. ECGs were compared using the following quality metrics: Kurtosis (k) value, Kurtosis signal quality index (kSQI), percentage of motion artifacts (%MA), peak signal amplitude, and heart rate (HR). Two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison tests was conducted to compare each metric. No significant differences were found in any of the assessed metrics between the smart textile band and Ag/AgCl electrodes, with the exception of peak amplitude. Kurtosis and kSQI values were excellent for both methods (textile mean k = 21.8 ± 6.1, median kSQI = 0.98 [0.92−1.0]; Ag/AgCl k = 21.2 ± 7.6, kSQI = 0.99 [0.97−1.0]) with <0.5% (<1 min) of the recording being corrupted by MAs for both. This study demonstrates that smart textiles are a practical and reliable alternative to the standard electrodes typically used in ECG monitoring of horses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".