MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318814327 · doi:10.3390/ani13030512

Validation of an Equine Smart Textile System for Heart Rate Variability: A Preliminary Study

2023· article· en· W4318814327 on OpenAlexafffund
Persephone McCrae, Hannah Spong, Nadia Golestani, Amin Mahnam, Yana Bashura, Wendy Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityHeart rateStandard deviationCardiologyMedicineLimits of agreementInternal medicinePhysical therapyMathematicsStatisticsNuclear medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiograms (ECGs), and associated heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) measurements, are essential in assessing equine cardiovascular health and fitness. Smart textiles have gained popularity, but limited validation work has been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare HR and HRV data obtained using a smart textile system (Myant) to the gold-standard telemetric device (Televet). Simultaneous ECGs were obtained using both systems in seven horses at rest and during a submaximal exercise test. Bland–Altman tests were used to assess agreement between the two devices. Strong to perfect correlations without significant differences between the two devices were observed for all metrics assessed. During exercise, mean biases of 0.31 bpm (95% limits of agreement: −1.99 to 2.61) for HR, 1.43 ms (−11.48 to 14.33) for standard deviation of R-R intervals (SDRR), and 0.04 (−2.30 to 2.38) for the HRV triangular index (TI) were observed. A very strong correlation was found between the two devices for HR (r = 0.9993, p < 0.0001) and for HRV parameters (SDRR r = 0.8765, p < 0.0001; TI r = 0.8712, p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates that a smart textile system is reliable for assessment of HR and HRV of horses at rest and during submaximal exercise.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207