MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389180836 · doi:10.2196/49346

The Utility of a Novel Electrocardiogram Patch Using Dry Electrodes Technology for Arrhythmia Detection During Exercise and Prolonged Monitoring: Proof-of-Concept Study

2023· article· en· W4389180836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lonneke Fruytier, Daan Martijn Janssen, Israel Campero-Jurado, Danny AJP van de Sande, Ilde Lorato, Shavini Stuart, Pradeep Panditha, Margreet de Kok, Hareld Kemps

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersITEA
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationWilcoxon signed-rank testCardiologyUsabilityElectrocardiographyContinuous monitoringInternal medicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of myocardial ischemia and arrhythmias during free-living exercise could play a pivotal role in screening and monitoring for the prevention of exercise-related cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. Although remote electrocardiogram (ECG) solutions are emerging rapidly, existing technology is neither designed nor validated for continuous use during vigorous exercise. OBJECTIVE: In this proof-of-concept study, we evaluated the usability, signal quality, and accuracy for arrhythmia detection of a single-lead ECG patch platform featuring self-adhesive dry electrode technology in individuals with chronic coronary syndrome. This sensor was evaluated during exercise and for prolonged, continuous monitoring. METHODS: We recruited a total of 6 consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome scheduled for an exercise stress test (EST) as part of routine cardiac follow-up. Traditional 12-lead ECG recording was combined with monitoring with the ECG patch. Following the EST, the participants continuously wore the sensor for 5 days. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to assess the utility of detecting arrhythmias with the patch by comparing the evaluations of 2 blinded assessors. Signal quality during EST and prolonged monitoring was evaluated by using a signal quality indicator. Additionally, connection time was calculated for prolonged ECG monitoring. The comfort and usability of the patch were evaluated by a web-based self-assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 6 male patients with chronic coronary syndrome (mean age 69.8, SD 6.2 years) completed the study protocol. The patch was worn for a mean of 118.3 (SD 5.6) hours. The level of agreement between the patch and 12-lead ECG was excellent for the detection of premature atrial contractions and premature ventricular contractions during the whole test (ICC=0.998, ICC=1.000). No significant differences in the total number of premature atrial contractions and premature ventricular contractions were detected neither during the entire exercise test (P=.79 and P=.18, respectively) nor during the exercise and recovery stages separately (P=.41, P=.66, P=.18, and P=.66). A total of 1 episode of atrial fibrillation was detected by both methods. Total connection time during recording was between 88% and 100% for all participants. There were no reports of skin irritation, erythema, or pain while wearing the patch. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study showed that this innovative ECG patch based on self-adhesive dry electrode technology can potentially be used for arrhythmia detection during vigorous exercise. The results suggest that the wearable patch is also usable for prolonged continuous ECG monitoring in free-living conditions and can therefore be of potential use in cardiac rehabilitation and tele-monitoring for the prevention of exercise-related cardiovascular events. Future efforts will focus on optimizing signal quality over time and conducting a larger-scale validation study focusing on both arrhythmia and ischemia detection.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207